[TLS] Editorial comments on -22

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6706B128B8E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:30:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UdaBVY-4tW5f for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B593F12896F for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vATIR2KU013374 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:22 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=zk1pVLiB881Cfy0nutRpXpBR18p+L4TdWOcf1E+UeVQ=; b=fMGXlhwSZGbYsBbGxHVlyc04D2io5fbB4X/oWCh5KYG2bS23VGhV1DEgWEoJiz40A+ph rxZSiFFtlfhnbfAmFAyCXRnTrYTP6xJhGX3iCwBFqUOAnm8Gqbnr0Ns2P0cQGI+MrcMJ xV2RS022f9kWxeXf3FTFCQGv7E+hTHTE0HuOic5hQGbc520iioJHeDJ8PqXLlE5wMzo5 rP7XWEkpXri1YPIqrfKbVXjWu//PJkA7K793M6V7//AoZvTiRKFtRrP/n59HkoWdA9t/ ZCDJjM4ggERd4eyTN+U6ISLTkaYHy6gXBT7H6rurzmF2ZZbHnoB5d6hnkMRncE8iFELQ zg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 ([96.6.114.87]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2ehpp7sv6k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:22 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vATIQFrh026002 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:30:21 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2ef4r0ku05-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:30:21 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) by usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:30:19 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:30:19 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:30:19 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Editorial comments on -22
Thread-Index: AQHTaUAbnaRRU+T5RkyWt9VJzT68Yg==
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:18 +0000
Message-ID: <141C1E5B-0A3C-4923-B5E4-6BFC4F44A9CD@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.34.97]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_141C1E5B0A3C4923B5E46BFC4F44A9CDakamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-11-29_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1711290238
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-11-29_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1711290238
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/kXUPPyvPRBT-Ba67feNhUKEE5tQ>
Subject: [TLS] Editorial comments on -22
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:27 -0000

> The handshake state machine has been significantly restructured to
      be more consistent and to remove superfluous messages such as
      ChangeCipherSpec.

No longer true, at least for CCS.

>      connection.  Unfortunately, some middleboxes fail when presented
      with new values.  In TLS 1.3, the TLS server indicates its version

I suggest replacing “middleboxes fail” with “intermediaries block the connection”

>   For backward compatibility reasons with middleboxes (see

Replace “middlebox” with “intermediary”.  This appears a couple of other times, and I suggest doing that replacement everywhere except in Appendix D where we say something like

“Network intermediaries, along the path between the two communicating endpoints, typically called intermediaries, have been shown to interfere …”

I also think that all of the changes described earlier (such as the ones quoted above, but there are others) should be summarized in Appendix D.

I am willing to do a PR for this, but not sure what to do about the first point I raised above.