Subject: [TLS] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 02:51:02 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-09: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Not issue on the technical content and the publication of this document,
but https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe/
and the write-up mention "Standard Track" while the draft status is
Informational, as spotted by Linda in her OPS-DIR review below:

This document is on the Informational Track to specify ways for client
and server to establish common finite-field DH parameters with known
structure and a mechanism for
peers to negotiate support for these groups.
The document is well written and very clear.
A couple questions:
1)    Why this document is not standard track?
2)    Several sections requests range in reference of p, e.g.  “p-1” or p
(Section 5). But there are so many numbers that can be “p” (page 17).
What is the significance of the range?