Re: [TLS] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Francesca, thank you for your review.

The ticket to track your review is:
https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/issues/106

cheers!

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:22 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker
<noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work on this document. I only have minor comments and nits
> below.
>
> Francesca
>
> 1. -----
>
>    sending messages to the client.  A zero-length CID value indicates
>    that the client is prepared to send with a CID but does not wish the
>    server to use one when sending.
>
> ...
>
>    to use when sending messages towards it.  A zero-length value
>    indicates that the server will send with the client's CID but does
>    not wish the client to include a CID.
>
> FP: clarification question: I am not sure the following formulation is very
> clear to me: "to send with a(/the client's) CID". Could "send with" be
> rephrased to clarify? The previous paragraph uses "using a CID value", that
> would be better IMO.
>
> 2. -----
>
>    the record format defined in {{dtls-ciphertext} with the new MAC
>
> FP: nit - missing "}" in markdown.
>
> 3. -----
>
>    The following MAC algorithm applies to block ciphers that use the
>    with Encrypt-then-MAC processing described in [RFC7366].
>
> FP: remove "with"
>
> 4. -----
>
> Section 10.1
>
> FP: I believe you should specify 1. what allowed values are for this column
> (i.e. Y or N, and what they mean) and 2. what happens to the existing entries -
> namely that they all get "N" value.
>
> 5. -----
>
> Section 10.2
>
> FP: Just checking - why is 53 "incompatible with this document"?
>
> 6. -----
>
>    Value   Extension Name  TLS 1.3  DTLS Only  Recommended  Reference
>
> FP: nit- s/DTLS Only/DTLS-Only to be consistent with 10.1
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

-- 
Thomas