[TLS] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-tls13-vectors-06: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-tls13-vectors-06: 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-tls13-vectors/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for all the work that went into this document. I think it's very useful
to have a set of test vectors for future implementations to develop against. I
have a couple of minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
§1:

>  Note:  Invocations of HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation
>     Function (HKDF) [RFC5869] are not labelled, but can be identified
>     through the use the labels used by HKDF.

This doesn't parse. Probably should say "...through the use of labels..." or
something similar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§6:

>  Note that private keys for this
>  example are not included in the draft.
>
>  {client}  create an ephemeral x25519 key pair:
>
>     private key (32 octets):...

I'm not sure what to make of this. Should it say "...private RSA keys for this
example..." or something like that? It may also be useful to include a sentence
or clause explaining why the omitted private key is not useful for users of this
document.