[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-tls
Subject:    Re:  =?utf-8?Q?[TLS]=C2=A0Re:=C2=A0ECDHE=5FPSK=C2=A0as=C2=A0WG=C2=A0item=3F?=
From:       badra () isima ! fr
Date:       2008-01-11 19:50:15
Message-ID: 1144.82.146.171.45.1200081015.squirrel () www ! isima ! fr
[Download RAW message or body]

Dear Simon,

Thank you for your comments on the document. Short comments in line...

>
> Some minor issues from a quick review:
>
> * In the abstract RFC 4785 (PSK-NULL) and RFC 4279 (PSK) are mentioned
>   in that order, twice.  I think it would be useful to mention them in
>   the reverse order.
>

OK.

> * Section 2 contains:
>
>    "The PSK identity and identity hint fields have the same
>    meaning as in the previous section (note that the ServerKeyExchange
>    message is always sent, even if no PSK identity hint is provided)."
>
>   What does 'the previous section' refer to?  I can't find any
>   discussions of PSK identity earlier in the document.
>

That's true. I will replace 'as in the previous section' with 'as in
RFC4279' (section 6).


> * The document could say explicitly that the PSK case in
>   ClientKeyExchange and ServerKeyExchange should not apply to PSK-ECDHE,
>   instead the ec_diffie_hellman_psk case should apply.  I propose:
>
>     When the CipherSuites defined in this document are used, the
>     'ec_diffie_hellman_psk' case inside the ServerKeyExchange and
>     ClientKeyExchange structure is used, instead of the 'psk' case
>     defined in RFC 4279.

OK.

Best regards,
Badra


_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]