Subject: [TLS] AD review comments for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis-05

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:23:31 +0200

I've now done my AD review for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis-05.  All my
comments are relatively minor, so I've requested the secretariat to
start IETF last call (these can be considered as the first last call
comments):

- The document doesn't seem to say anything about issue #102
(extensibility of server_name NameTypes) yet. One option would be to
say that all future NameTypes must begin with a 16-bit length field
(so the recipient can skip over unrecognized NameTypes). Another
obvious alternative is to say NameTypes will not be extended (perhaps
this would be even simpler).

- Section 3 of RFC 4366 used to have text describing how these
extensions behave during resumption. Probably we still need this text?
(RFC 5246 says each extension type needs to describe this)

- As noted in issue #100, the last sentence of Section 4 probably
needs to be qualified for DTLS case.

- In Section 5, the notation "opaque padding<1>" isn't valid notation
according to 5246; should be "uint8 padding" instead?

Best regards,
Pasi