Re: [radext] WGLC for Publication of TLS-PSK draft as an Informational RFC

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Wed, 09 August 2023 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6743C14CF12 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uyKexYCXCT2P for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 07:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639D3C14F693 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (135-23-95-173.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.95.173]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D870A308; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 14:37:35 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <05f6b29d-a264-f4e4-fa55-bb78139bdc5f@dfn.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 10:37:34 -0400
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <651E63E0-C5CA-4666-8334-09D0538BF6A2@deployingradius.com>
References: <617FA25F-6A72-46ED-962D-CDB8C439B0EE@gmail.com> <05f6b29d-a264-f4e4-fa55-bb78139bdc5f@dfn.de>
To: Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/xiJXaooJYTqr-fkf5sNe4xfY2f4>
Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC for Publication of TLS-PSK draft as an Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 14:37:43 -0000

On Aug 9, 2023, at 10:05 AM, Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de> wrote:
> I have read the updated -01 version of the document and generally support submitting this document.

  Thanks.

> However, I have found some nits that I would like to see fixed before publication:
> 
> * Section 5 Introduction
> The first sentences are a repetition of the wording in section 3.
> It's not clear to me why this sould be repeated for RADIUS clients, since it is also true for RADIUS servers.

  It may be best to just reword that.

> I would suggest to find a different introduction into this section, that does not repeat the (more or less) exact words of section 3.

  Sure.

> * Cipher suites
> 
> In Section 5 for RADIUS clients it says "Implementations MUST use ECDH cipher suites."
> I don't understand why this requirement is included only here and not in the server section as well.

  I'll add it.

> 
> * TBDs
> 
> There are still 2 TBD's included: One in Section 2 (Terminology), one in Section 10 (Acknowledgements)
> Either these should be removed or text should be added

  I'll fix that,l

> * Note to RFC Editor
> 
> Section 11 (Changelog) should probably include a note to the RFC-Editor that this section may be removed.

  I'll just delete that before the submission to the RFC editor.

> Typos/Punctuation (Both section 6.1):

  Fixed, thanks.

  Alan DeKok.