Subject: [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-41

From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:41:53 -0800

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-51
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2021-02-16
IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready

This document updates RFC6347 (DTLS 1.2) with version 1.3 of the protocol. It's
a clear, well structured and mature document, justifying the time and number of
successive iterations spent in writing it.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

Is really [RFC6347] which this document OBSOLETEs only an Informative Reference?

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:33:29 -0800

Hi Dan,

> Is really [RFC6347] which this document OBSOLETEs only an Informative Reference?

Thanks for the review!

I don't really understand this comment, though -- the only other choice is
to be a normative reference, but we couldn't make a normative reference to
an obsolete document.  Was there something in particular that you thought
required 6437 to be a normative reference?

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 23:44:29 +0200

Hi Ben,

Thank you for addressing my review.

Any document that is required in order to understand and/or implement a
document should be a Normative Reference. If your document obsoletes
another document, how can that document be anything but a Normative
Reference? And yes, my understanding is that you can make a normative
reference to an obsolete document in this case.

Of course, this is still an editorial comment that I am sure the RFC Editor
will sort out.

Regards,

Dan