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

[Joseph Salowey <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Francesca,

We'll take a look at the reference substitution.  It would be better to be
accurate with the section.  A quick check suggests that this shouldn't be
too hard.  It's also possible that some of the references may be in text
that is updated.

Cheers,

Joe

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:10 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> 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).
>
> ## nits
>
> 2. -----
>
> FP: s/shepard/shepherd
>
>
>
>