Re: [Emu] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for reviewing. Answers in-line.

--Mohit

On 10/6/21 12:10 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker wrote:
> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-20: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work on this document. I only have one minor comment and a
> nit. Neither require replies strictly speaking, please feel free to address as
> you see fit.
>
> Francesca
>
> ## minors
>
> 1. -----
>
>     All the following references in [RFC5216] are updated as specified
>     below when EAP-TLS is used with TLS 1.3.
>
>     All references to [RFC2560] are updated with [RFC6960].
>
>     All references to [RFC3280] are updated with [RFC5280].
>
>     All references to [RFC4282] are updated with [RFC7542].
>
> FP: I just want to double check everybody is ok with doing this type of update
> to the references: as the table of contents of these documents are not exactly
> the same, strictly speaking this could lead to some inaccuracies - for example
> RFC 5216 states:
>
>     as a server certificate.  Implementations SHOULD use the Extended Key
>     Usage (see Section 4.2.1.13 of [RFC3280]) extension and ensure that
>
> Section 4.2.1.13 of RFC 3280 is
>
>                    4.2.1.13. CRL Distribution Points ..................45
>
> Section 4.2.1.13 of RFC 5280 is
>
>     4.2.1.13  Extended Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
>
> This is not a big issue because the table of contents are mostly the same, but
> still requires the reader to be able to backtrack the right section (in this
> case, it would be 4.2.1.14) (This is only an example, I haven't checked all
> occurrences of those references in RFC 5216).
John has updated Appendix A: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-21#appendix-A.
>
> ## nits
>
> 2. -----
>
> FP: s/shepard/shepherd
Fixed.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu