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

[Achim Kraus <[e-mail]>]

Hello Francesca,

 > 5. -----
 >
 > Section 10.2
 >
 > FP: Just checking - why is 53 "incompatible with this document"?

The 53 was is used with the MAC definition of the previous version 06 of
this draft. Though the MAC has been adapted, using a different extension
number makes it easier to migrate existing deployments to that new MAC.
At least for Eclipse/Californium I know, that is used with 53 and the
old MAC.

best regards
Achim Kraus

Am 20.04.21 um 18:22 schrieb Francesca Palombini via Datatracker:
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>