Re: [CHANNEL-BINDING] Last Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard

[Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I support the goal of this document, i.e. to publish the text in the
> IANA repository as an RFC.
> 
> There are differences between the text in the current IANA repository
> and the document.  These differences are not spelled out in the document
> for the 'tls-server-end-point' channel binding.  The document says:
> 
>    Note that the only material changes from the original registration
>    should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
>    specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
>    should be consulted for applicability advice.
> 
> That is not correct, compare the content registered with IANA

This is true, though the difference isn't likely to have any real
impact, ever.  That may be why I neglected to update the above note.

> I suggest that the first paragraph quoted above from section 4 is
> modified like this:
> 
> OLD:
>    Note that the only material changes from the original registration
>    should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
>    specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
>    should be consulted for applicability advice.
> 
> NEW:
>    Note that the only material changes from the original registration
>    should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
>    specfication, and a clarification to the description related to
>    certificate's that do not use hash functions or use multiple hash
                ^
		remove apostrophe.
>    functions.  We also added a note indicating that this specification
>    contains applicability advice, and we moved security considerations
>    notes to the security considerations section of this document.
> 
> The last sentence is copied from section 3 for consistency.
> 
> Also missing is in section 3 and section 5 is a note that references
> were added to the text.  I suggest:
> 
> OLD:
>    ...security considerations section of this document.  All other
>    fields of the registration are copied here for the convenience of
>    readers.
> 
> NEW:
>    ...security considerations section of this document.  References were
>    added to the description.  All other fields of the registration are
>    copied here for the convenience of readers.

I'm happy with your proposed changes.

Nico
--