Subject: Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:04:37 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date: 17 April 2015
IETF LC End Date: 17 April 2015
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready with minor issues and nits. I did not attempt to verify 
the hexadecimal expansions of p and q in Appendix A.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. Section 3 third paragraph: to what does "these values" refer? Any 
supported group at all, or specifically FFDHE groups? Nit: the ALSO is 
not part of RFC 2119 terminology, so should not be capitalized. The 
usual question: why SHOULD rather than MUST?

2. Why SHOULDs rather than MUSTs in the first paragraph of Section 4? 
What alternative does the server have in these cases?

Nits/editorial comments:

1. IDNits complains that the Abstract does not list the RFCs updated by 
this one. You need to add a statement like: "This document updates RFC 
2246, RFC 4346, RFC 4492, and RFC 5246."

2. Section 1, second-last paragraph, third line: s/;/ and/

3. Section 3 fourth paragraph: s/who/that/

4. Section 8, second paragraph, third line: s/it/IANA/

5. Section 9.1, first line: s/is hashed/are hashed/

6. Section 9.1, second indented paragraph under "An attacker who 
impersonates the client ...":
First line ends in an incomplete thought "(e.g. by ."

7. Same location, all three indented paragraphs: "e.g." has to be 
followed by a comma.

8. Section 9.2, first para, third line: s/which defines/that define/

9. Annex A.x, several instances: s/calcluated/calculated/