Subject: [TLS] IESG Feedback on RFC 3546

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:24:45 -0700

I've been working with the IESG to reach resolution on issues
raised during the IESG review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12653&rfc_flag=0)

Here's my assessment of what needs to be done:
1. In Section 1., clarify how non-extensions-capable servers
   receive requests for extensions support. This is clear
   in 2246, but it would be useful explanation. [Mankin]

2. In Section 2.3, suggest changing "server initiated" 
   to "server oriented" extensions and expand the discussion
   a little bit, making clear that the client is offering
   the capability to understand said extension and that
   the server is taking it up on this offer. [Mankin]

3. In S 3.3, provide advice that only HTTP, HTTPS, and
   FTP are the protocols that are expected to be used here
   and that other protocols may create unexpected problems.
   [Hardie]

4. Indicate that the ID updates both 2246 and 2246bis,
   with normative references to both, because this 
   document applies to both TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 [Hollenbeck]

5. S 9 Update the IANA sections to indicate that the change
   controller for this MIME type to be the IESG [Hartman]

Once the document is updated to reflect these, we should be good
to go.

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls