[TLS] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-03: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 03 September 2015 09:52 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150903095233.14388.52096.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 02:52:33 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9rz9d5N-5_NMxmbapo2JWp9BsIg>
Cc: tls@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com
Subject: [TLS] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-03: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-padding-03: 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-padding/



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

Like Ben:
-- 5, last sentence:
Do you expect anyone to implement this MAY? It seems like this either
needs to be stronger, or removed as a "why bother"?

In my spec, I usually write this way: 
   Servers SHOULD verify that the extension
   is either empty or contains only zero bytes and log the exceptions.

[TLS] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Benoit Claise