I trimmed down the original message; if my response isn’t clear, please let me know.
> 1) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the following update. If > accepted, we will update similar text in Section 1 as well. The proposed change is fine. > 2) [rfced] We see that the following TLS registries have been added … but > there are no > comments for the entries. Please review. > TLS SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels [draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile-05][RFC9847] > TLS RRC Message Types [draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc-20] Neither table MUST have a Commments or Notes column, although I am a fan of consistency. The rationale for saying not required is: SSLKEYLOGFILE labels only output for off-line analysis and RRC messages are only for DTLS. I would prefer to be consistent, but if that’s a problem, I can live without changing those tables. Let me know if we need to change this doc. > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style Guide No changes seem to be required.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
