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

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I'm no DTLS expert, but I found the concepts/explanation in this document easy
to follow.

I was slightly confused by the requirement to encode the length in variable
length CIDs, and had to read the relevant text a second time.   As a
suggestion, it might help if these two sentences were reworded the other way
round:

OLD:
Implementations that want to use
   variable-length CIDs are responsible for constructing the CID in such
   a way that its length can be determined on reception.  Note that
   there is no CID length information included in the record itself.

NEW:
Since the CID length information is not included in the record itself,
implementations that want to use ... <as before>.

One minor question.  In the contributors, I noted that Jana is listed as being
associated with Google, but it might be worth checking if that is still
accurate.

Regards.
Rob