[Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 30 November 2015 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57D81A6F8E; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:46:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7jg0zUhjFa7v; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970401A6F8D; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pacej9 with SMTP id ej9so170126249pac.2; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:46:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date :to:mime-version; bh=QJQNFtm0KcSk5xJmGWNC4iummoldV1zhYtVPjJwHhis=; b=N7l0+qcaVUqOJ44dZ4OSxoKQjI912hi+QXEObvx1B0Xl2jxe2ap7nKR4B6A/jTMHLt VyhtZyqmiS6kI6qSwqPfYKT9Du4FHEyJdDY7rx0DNfqXYA1RgrteMyYikbV0gXxrVkSY RhChgdAUkXkVOet4EmZHjSDQK0daNJmMD0A+ikvceYPTMc1/CkZCDrsCtzR9RJXlZawO Jl6Zk92SR7RU4fZQmnrNwz8KQjZrvJhhoAebKrVCz8dKmnx8SULEdXTB+gMNA9pSO+is pna28u65nhbBr7KUUH4G+v+E34Mj2zds+PAT2FbHoh4CBQY+GQw2YN2Bg4vIJM2sWVJN BMMw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 132mr67425422pfa.131.1448855199224; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4204:228b:f0f0:8385:ca7e:ac06? ([2601:647:4204:228b:f0f0:8385:ca7e:ac06]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q23sm47447133pfi.34.2015. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:46:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A36B32E0-28E9-4B9C-AE8F-F9C21B3110E4@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:46:33 -0800
To: "gen-art@ietf.org (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tls-cached-info@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Rpsq0Dl5GHhGfWly6j-PQJKjki0>
Subject: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 03:46:41 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 2015-11-29
IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-04
IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-17


Ready for publication with some nits.


The document was good read and easy to understand.

Minor issues/nits:

* IDnits spits out some warning & comments that all seem to be bogus. However, the normative reference to RFC 4634 needs to be replaced with RFC 6234.

* The document describes in few places how the mechanisms specified extends/updates the Certificate and CertificateRequest structures. So maybe the draft should also state that in its boilerplate “Updates: 5246, 7250” ?

* Line 99: s/its’/its

* Line 164: s/data\.\./data\.

* Section 5 talks about “input data” for the hash & fingerprint calculation. What the “input data” exactly is becomes obvious after reading the Appendix A. However, for non-TLS WG activist it was not obvious from the first sight. Suggest adding a forward reference to Appendix A example.

* Section 6 uses [0], [1], .. [4]. While these are perfectly correct they can be mixed with references in the first sight -> few seconds of confusion ;) I would suggest using (0), .. (4). 

* The document uses referencing all styles “RFC 7250 [RFC7250]”, “RFC 7250” and “[RFC7250]”. Pick one.

* It is unclear to me what happens & what are the procedures when two different “input data”s generate the same fingerprint.