Re: [TLS] Updated draft: Minor Edits

<> Mon, 04 January 2010 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD393A659A for <>; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:14:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.357
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FH_DATE_PAST_20XX=10.357, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WyHY200p8CLs for <>; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89343A6876 for <>; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id o046EQ6q023770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:14:26 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:14:18 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id o046EHkQ019392; Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:14:18 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:14:17 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:14:15 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C1_01CA8D58.F5E11D90"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Updated draft: Minor Edits
thread-index: Acp+lzFvW3jPk9FoTmSulGvkAhZAagOa20Cw
References: <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2010 06:14:17.0309 (UTC) FILETIME=[2544A8D0:01CA8D05]
X-EMM-EM: Active
Subject: Re: [TLS] Updated draft: Minor Edits
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:14:31 -0000

Hi Eric,

Here are some minor changes that David Makepeace and I recommend to 

Section 1.0, last paragraph, eighth line: "date" should be "data"

Section 1.0, last paragraph, last line: Inverted commas (") at the end of the 
paragraph should be removed.

Section 4.0, first paragraph, fifth line: This currently reads 
"..."renegotiation info" may find handshake failures". I think the word 
"extension" should be added to "renegotiation info" to match the usage 
elsewhere in the draft. I think that "find" should be changed to 
"encountered". Hence, the revised version would read:
..."renegotiation info" extension may encounter handshake failures.

Section 4.0, first paragraph, eighth line: I would capitalize the first letter 
of the words which make up the acronym SCSV so there is absolutely no 
confusion over what the acronym stands for.

Section 4.0, first paragraph, eleventh line: I think the word "exactly" can be 
removed - having it here implies that elsewhere when one reads "has the same" 
means that in some way things are not really the same, and are just similar.

Section 6.1, second paragraph, ninth line: This currently reads " set of 
client behavior which..." I think this should be " set client behavior 
which..." (removing "of" and implying one behavior), but perhaps it should be 
" set of client behaviors which..." (adding an s to behavior implying 
multiple behaviors).

Peter Robinson -
Engineering Manager
RSA, The Security Division of EMC -
Level 32, Waterfront Place, 1 Eagle Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, 
Phone: +61 7 3227 4427, Mobile: +61 407 962 150, Fax: +61 7 3227 4400.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Eric 
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 7:32 AM
Subject: [TLS] Updated draft

I've just submitted a new draft that is intended to enact most of
Pasi's message as well as the noncontroversial editorial comments
people have raised. Here is what I know still needs work:

- The final resolution to what's sent in the legacy renegotiation
  case (see Pasi's message and the text I sent earlier).
- New text for the identity section in Security considerations.
  (Pending closure on the list).
- Make a pass through for clarity for implementors.
  (Also, I have some text here that Pasi contributed that I
  need to work in).

If you think you made a comment which is noncontroversial
that didn't make it in and/or I screwed up incorporating your
comment, please let me know and I'll try to fix.

For some reason, the submission tool is forcing manual
submission. In the interim you can find it at:


TLS mailing list