Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension
RFC 7924

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 20 and is now closed.

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

Comment (2015-12-17 for -20)
No email
send info
Just a quick comment, sorry for asking this late and I won't hold up on it either, just want to raise the question without quite enough time to research it all.

I see the SHA-256 truncation is just 32 bits.  In other applications, about half is what is typically recommended.  I know you are trying to cut on space, but will problems arise from this shorter value?

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2015-12-17 for -20)
No email
send info
The authors may wish to check Jouni Korhonen's Gen-ART review comments. I have not seen a response.

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-12-16 for -20)
No email
send info
-section 4, paragraph 4:
It might be helpful to have a little more guidance to clients for multi-tenant server environments. For example, the fact that it might want to cache different certs from the same server in the first place. Also, when might it be reasonable to violate the RECOMMENDED?

- 4.1:
Should the reference for 7250 be normative?

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2015-12-15 for -20)
No email
send info
I have two comments about Section 8.2:

1. The Standards Action range starts at 0, and you've assigned 1 and 2, but not 0.  Is it intended that 0 should remain reserved and unassigned?  If so, you should say that.

2. For the Specification Required range, is there any guidance you can/should give to the designated expert?  What do you expect the DE to look for when evaluating requests?  Why might the DE not approve a request?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection