[TLS] Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12: (with COMMENT)

[Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis/



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

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the effort put into the maintenance of this key specification.

I reviewed only the diff vs. RFC8446. Please find below some few comments, most
are nits:

# No need to obsolete already obsoleted RFCs (RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422).
Likewise, I didn’t find new updates of 5705 and 6066 beyond what was already
updated by RFC8446.

CURRENT:
   This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes
   RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446.  This document also specifies
   new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.

# (nit) Introduction: “application protocols ..with their application protocol”

OLD:
Application protocols using TLS
   MUST specify how TLS works with their application protocol, including
   how and when handshaking occurs, and how to do identity verification.

Maybe

NEW:
   Applications using TLS
   MUST specify how TLS works with their application protocol, including
   how and when handshaking occurs, and how to do identity verification.

# (nit) 4.2.8: omission and inclusion

OLD:
   For this reason, the omission of a share for group A and inclusion of
   one for group B does not mean that the client prefers B to A.

NEW:
   For this reason, the omission of a share for group A and inclusion of
   one for group B do not mean that the client prefers B to A.

# (nit) 4.2.8.1

OLD: the contents of the public value is
NEW: the contents of the public value are

# (nit) Section 11: please double check this sentence:

CURRENT:
The changes
   between [RFC8446] and [RFC8447] this document are described in
   Section 11.1.  IANA has updated these to reference this document.

Cheers,
Med