Subject: [TLS] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-41: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:03:46 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-41: Yes

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13/

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

[ section 4.4 ]

* "respectively" -> "respectively."

* Could a DTLS implementation packetize to a min-MTU for an IP version
  and avoid all pMTU issues?  Such a strategy would probably be poor for
  IPv4 but might be acceptable for IPv6 communications.

[ section 4.5.3 ]

* "MUST NOT used" -> "MUST NOT be used"

[ section 5.8.4 ]

* "NOT have send" -> "NOT send", I think

[ section 6 ]

* "which are needed to encrypt to decrypt"?