Subject: [kitten] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 08:28:14 -0800

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-14: 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-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13/

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

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term "master"; alternatives might be "active", "central", "initiator",
   "leader", "main", "orchestrator", "parent", "primary", "server".

Thanks to Dale Worley for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/pO9096L_fD2Ey3DKJ2mfFOpGVHY).

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

"Abstract", paragraph 2, nit:
> h RFC 5056, On Channel Binding. Furthermore it updates the default channel b
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Furthermore".

Section 1. , paragraph 2, nit:
> ent updates [RFC5929] by adding an additional unique channel binding type, "t
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This phrase might be redundant. Consider either removing or replacing the
adjective "additional".

Reference [RFC5246] to RFC5246, which was obsoleted by RFC8446 (this may be on
purpose).