Subject: Re: [websec] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:06 -0700

thanks for the review Paul. I noticed I didn't respond to some portions of your 
message that didn't get transformed into issue tickets. here goes...

 > Significant:
 >
 > This document pretends that the TLSA protocol from the DANE WG will not
 > exist.

this item is captured in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/39> 
and has been discussed in a separate thread..

<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01141.html>

 > Moderate:
 >
 > In section 8.1.2, I don't know what "ignoring separator characters" means,
 > and suspect it will cause pain if left this way.

That phrase is simply deleted in my -07 working copy.

 > [I-D.ietf-tls-ssl-version3] is not a "work in progress". I'll take this up
 > on the rfc-interest mailing list, and nothing needs to be done here.

That is addressed in my working copy via ref of (the recently published) 
[RFC6101] instead.

 > RFC 2818 is listed as a normative reference, and yet it is Informational.
 > This will need to be called out in the PROTO report. Alternately, it can be
 > called an informative reference, since one does not need to understand it
 > in order to implement this document.

this item was addressed by Alexey in his reply here..

<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01104.html>

 > I have alerted the idna-update mailing list of this WG LC. This might cause
 > some helicoptered-in comments, but better now than during IETF LC.

I had noticed that.  I'll followup there once -07 is pub'd. Note that I'd 
engaged in non-trivial discussions there on idna-update@ about various aspects 
of -strict-transport-sec back in Sep-2011...

<http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2011-September/007140.html>

..and I have some hopefull-improved IDNA language in my -07 working copy.

 > Editorial:
 >
 > "annunciate" (used a few times) is a fancy word for "announce". Maybe use
 > the far more common word instead.
 >
 > In section 3.1, "suboptimal downside" is unclear. Is there an optimal
 > downside? I suggest replacing it with "negative".
 >
 > The lead sentences in sections 11.2, 11.4, and 11.5 lack verbs; verbs are
 > used in 11.1 and 11.3. This should be an easy fix.

the above are captured in issue ticket #40 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/40>

thanks again,

=JeffH