Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tls-padding-01

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

Can you post a revision of this with those changes before Thursday?
If so, I'll put this on the Sep 3 IESG telechat for approval.

I didn't see any other changes that need to be made as a result of
the IETF LC, but please correct me if that's wrong.

Thanks,
S.

On 18/08/15 01:31, Adam Langley wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Meral Shirazipour
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> -The draft's "Intended status:" is missing in the title.
> 
> Fixed (locally).
> 
>> -[Page 2], Introduction, it would be clearer if the introduction would give
>> more high level information or a reference to the 'implementation bug' being
>> referred to:
>>
>> "At least  one of these implementation bugs can be ameliorated by making the
>> ClientHello even larger."
>>
>> Is this bug the one explained in Section 4?
> 
> It is. Basically this draft exists entirely because of a bug in F5
> products, but the rough sense from ekr (TLS WG chair) was that we
> probably didn't want to call them out specifically because they
> (eventually) did cooperate and help us work around the issues.
> 
> Thus there's some unfortunate ambiguity in the text. If you think
> that's nonsense then I sympathise and can take it up with the chairs.
> 
>> -[Page 2], "consists of an arbitary"---->"consists of an arbitrary"
> 
> Thanks, fixed (locally).
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> AGL
>