[Emu] Re: secdir review of draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Thank you for your detailed comments.
> 
> I have produced an updated version of the document to address these and
> other IETF last call comments:
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/EMU/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt

Except as noted below those look fine. And since the things below
are ok too, I've no remaining issues with this draft.

Regards,
Stephen.

> - 2.1.3 3rd para says "verify the hash" without saying which hash.
> 
> [BA] I presume we're talking about the Finished message, no? Do we need to
> state that explicitly?

I'd just say "verify the finished message" but its a nit.

> - 2.1.5 is "may be desirable" right? That paragraph seems a bit vague
> overall.
> 
> [rmh] Yes, that is an ok change.
> 
> [BA] Are we talking about the second paragraph?  Is there a suggested
> change in the text?
> 
> "   In order to protect against reassembly lockup and denial of service
>    attacks, it may be desirable for an implementation to set a maximum
>    size for one such group of TLS messages.  Since a single certificate
>    is rarely longer than a few thousand octets, and no other field is
>    likely to be anywhere near as long, a reasonable choice of maximum
>    acceptable message length might be 64 KB."

Actually on re-reading I also it clearer so you can ignore
me here (must've had a bad day before:-)

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu