AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10
"Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:16:49 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.xmpp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Here is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10. I have a few minor comments, but nothing that needs to delay the last call. Thanks! Ben. ------- -- Section 4.1: Does the "(Section 4.3: No Mutual PKIX authentication)" belong where it is, or before the first dialback assertion? -- 4.3, step 6: Do I understand correctly that this step involves A sending a valid and trusted server cert, when it was previously unable to send a valid and trusted client cert? Is that a reasonable assumption? Whether yes or no, does it deserve a mention in the text? (It's likely I am missing something that should be obvious.) -- step 7: The reference to xep-0344 is informative. Should it be normative? If not, then perhaps a stronger mention of skipping subsequent steps should be included here? (it’s only mentioned in terms of the reference.) -- 4.4.1, steps 3 and later: The text says that A sends an initial stream header to B. Should that be considered B or C for the rest of the flow? I guess in the example, B==C, but is that required? (perhaps B and C coordinate dialback keys?) Maybe it doesn't matter from A's perspective. _______________________________________________ xmpp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp