Subject: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-01

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:11:58 -0700

This is a Working Group Last Call:

   DES and IDEA Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
   draft-ietf-tls-des-idea-01

The intended status of this document is Informational.

Please provide any comments on this draft by Friday May 30.

-Ekr
[As WG co-chair]

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:12:00 -0700

>The intended status of this document is Informational.

In general, this document is fine. However, I have two issues with it:

- If it is meant to be an Informational RFC, it should not have 
SHOULD and MUST requirements

- Even if were meant for BCP or standards track, it is better to put 
SHOULD and MUST requirements in the main body of the document instead 
of in the Security Considerations section because they are 
requirements, not considerations.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:31:07 -0400

>SHOULD and MUST requirements

I disagree.  We've had this discussion on the IESG, and there is no 
problem with MUST and SHOULD in informational and experimental 
protocol specifications.  These terms have the following context:  If 
you choose to implement this non-standard document, then you need to 
comply with the normative language in them.

Russ

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:21:19 -0700

>comply with the normative language in them.

That works for me. I'm not trying to make more work for the IESG, and 
it sounds like they've already thought about this.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:20:36 +0200

You might consider a few tweaks to the wording.

1) In the abstract, RFC NNNN refers to the new TLS1.2 RFC; in s.5, RFCnnnn
refers to the I-D itself.  I suggest adding notes to the RFC Editor spelling out
which is which.

2) s.3, s4.2
'IDEA Cipher Suites' but there is only one; make it singular?

3) s.3
s/IDEA (International Data Encryption Algorithm) is block cipher/IDEA
(International Data Encryption Algorithm) is a block cipher/

4) 3.4.1
s/Given these/Given this/

Tom Petch