Subject: [TLS] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 06:18:31 -0700

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-07: 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-tls-external-psk-importer/

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

Using lowercase "not" together with an uppercase RFC2119 keyword is not
acceptable usage. Found: "SHOULD not"

Thanks to Brian Carpenter for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/vpFO8fQNaWU_qRWSelGo99K3rVY).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Document references draft-ietf-quic-transport, but that has been published as
RFC9000.

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

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:05:08 -0400

> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:18, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yep we should fix this to SHOULD NOT.

> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/vpFO8fQNaWU_qRWSelGo99K3rVY).

Yep this can be fixed.

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

This one is definitely on purpose.