Re: [TLS] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

For the transport ADs, who both noticed the same typo:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/commit/e36a69777ee5661c33a421d64bb48bb68c7680b9
 (I think that it might have been "any", but "a" is equally good and
also fewer characters)

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Spencer Dawkins
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a nit, but just to make sure …
>
>   The "record_size_limit" extension replaces the "max_fragment_length"
>    extension [RFC6066].  A server that supports the "record_size_limit"
>    extension MUST ignore and "max_fragment_length" that appears in a
>                          ^^^
> the "and" should be "any", shouldn't it?
>
>    ClientHello if both extensions appear.  A client MUST treat receipt
>    of both "max_fragment_length" and "record_size_limit" as a fatal
>    error, and SHOULD generate an "illegal_parameter" alert.
>
>