Re: [TLS] Kathleen Moriarty's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-session-hash-05: (with COMMENT)

[Karthikeyan Bhargavan <[e-mail]>]

A question about procedure:

I agree with both Kathleen's and Barry’s comments.
Should I incorporate them at this stage to produce a new draft, or should I wait for 
some official notification?

Best,
Karthik

On 08 May 2015, at 23:08, Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-session-hash-05: Yes
> 
> 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-session-hash/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for your work on this and a well-written draft!  The
> considerations are very thorough, every time I had a question, I was able
> to find an answer in the draft.  I do think a couple more references
> could be helpful though.
> 
> 1. I think it would be good for section 6.4 to note that SSL 3.0 has been
> deprecated in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie/
> It's ahead of this draft in the RFC editor queue.
> 
> 2. It might be good to have a pointer to the UTA TLS Attack RFC7457 as
> this attack is described in section 2.11 and there is no reference to a
> fix.  It would be nice to show that known attacks are being resolved. 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7457#section-2.11
> 
>