[TLS] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-13: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-13: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-13
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Deirdre Connolly for the shepherd's write-up *but* the report
of the TLS WG discussion about -bis and update is rather confusing (as this I-D
is on the same topic).

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### is it a -bis or an update ?

As noticed by other ADs, the file name infers to be a -bis (i.e., obsoleting
the original version) while the title (and the lack of 'obsolote' tag) means it
is an update.

Unsure why the TLS WG did not clarify this in the filename (e.g., the
datatracker diff with RFC 8447 is rather useless).

### Abstract

s/This document updates *the changes to* TLS and DTLS IANA registries *made in
RFC 8447*./This document updates the TLS and DTLS IANA registries./

### Sections 3 and 3.1 (value 'D')

I find the text around the 'discouraged' value confusing... in section 3,
`Implementers and users SHOULD consult the linked references` (rather than a
MUST) while section 3.1 has `the item is discouraged and SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT
be used`, the latter being clearer.

Suggestion: add one example (perhaps a constrained IoT node) of one
'discouraged' item that 'may' be used.

The column heading "Recommended" does not much well with "discouraged" (two
past participles in a row -- this sounds very weird in my French native
language, less sure about English).

### Sections 4 to 14

Should these sections be under 'IANA Considerations' ?

Please provide an URI for these registries as normative references.

### Section 14

Should there be a value for the added "comment" column in the registries ? I
guess the content is blank/empty, but let's be clear.