Subject: [TLS] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:52:02 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: 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 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-record-limit/

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

This is a nit, but just to make sure …

  The "record_size_limit" extension replaces the "max_fragment_length"
   extension [RFC6066].  A server that supports the "record_size_limit"
   extension MUST ignore and "max_fragment_length" that appears in a
                         ^^^
the "and" should be "any", shouldn't it?

   ClientHello if both extensions appear.  A client MUST treat receipt
   of both "max_fragment_length" and "record_size_limit" as a fatal
   error, and SHOULD generate an "illegal_parameter" alert.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:47:52 +1000

For the transport ADs, who both noticed the same typo:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/commit/e36a69777ee5661c33a421d64bb48bb68c7680b9
 (I think that it might have been "any", but "a" is equally good and
also fewer characters)