Dear RFC Editor: > 1) <!--[rfced] Regarding the title, even though "PCEPS" is explained in the > abstract, please consider updating the title so that at least "PCEP" is > expanded. > > Original: > Updates for PCEPS: TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions > > Perhaps: > Updates to the Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the > Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
The proposed title looks fine to me. > 2) <!--[rfced] May we clarify the citation to RFC 9325 by adding "TLS/DTLS > recommendations" to the sentence below? > > Original: > The Security Considerations of PCEP [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8253], > [RFC8281], and [RFC8283]; TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]; TLS 1.3 > [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and; [RFC9325] apply here as well. > > Perhaps: > The security considerations of PCEP [RFC5440] [RFC8231] [RFC8253] > [RFC8281] [RFC8283], TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], TLS 1.3 [RFC9846], > and TLS/DTLS recommendations [RFC9325] apply here as well. > --> The proposed edit looks fine to me. > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> I do not see any concerns. Russ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
