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

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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