FYI. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lars Eggert <[email protected]> To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Mon Jan 17 04:40:22 2011 Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection ondraft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-14: (with COMMENT)
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-14: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1.5., paragraph 8: > These suggestions are not entirely consistent with all practices that > are currently followed by certification authorities, client > developers, and service providers. However, they reflect the best > aspects of current practices and are expected to become more widely > adopted in the coming years. This seems to argue that the doc should be a BCP and not a PS? Section 1.8., paragraph 28: > Transport Layer Security [TLS] negotiation; in this specfication Nit: s/specfication/specification/ Appendix A., paragraph 1: > recommendations in this specfication: email [EMAIL-SRV] and XMPP Nit: s/specfication:/specification:/ Section 7.2., paragraph 1: > Implemenations MUST NOT match any form of wildcard, such as a Nit: s/Implemenations/Implementations/ _______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
