[TLS] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-09: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 26 May 2015 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C1B1A8855; Tue, 26 May 2015 02:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 1xhSFGj6HkRB; Tue, 26 May 2015 02:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B691A87DF; Tue, 26 May 2015 02:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150526095102.11765.53827.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 02:51:02 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/oVAAr5Hr02Tf1VSn3AQ6qZy5Bpk>
Cc: tls@ietf.org, linda.dunbar@huawei.com, draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe.ad@ietf.org, tls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe@ietf.org
Subject: [TLS] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 26 May 2015 09:51:04 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-09: 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-negotiated-ff-dhe/



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

Not issue on the technical content and the publication of this document,
but https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe/
and the write-up mention "Standard Track" while the draft status is
Informational, as spotted by Linda in her OPS-DIR review below:

This document is on the Informational Track to specify ways for client
and server to establish common finite-field DH parameters with known
structure and a mechanism for
peers to negotiate support for these groups.
The document is well written and very clear.
A couple questions:
1)    Why this document is not standard track?
2)    Several sections requests range in reference of p, e.g.  ā€œp-1ā€ or p
(Section 5). But there are so many numbers that can be ā€œpā€ (page 17).
What is the significance of the range?