Marco Tiloca's WGLC comments

[thomas-fossati]

This is my initial attempt at addressing Marco's review comments ( #62 ).

Most of his comments were very precise and sensible, so I just applied the suggestion more or less verbatim.

---

Things not (yet) addressed, which we need to discuss:

• "I think that another requirement should be that the initiator MUST NOT act on more than one valid path_response or path_drop message for each path_challenge message that it has sent."

I am not sure about this because that's a state that can't materialise if the responder obeys the specified MUSTs:

• "The responder MUST send exactly one path_response or path_drop message for each received path_challenge."

---

While in the flow, I reworked / streamlined a bit the intro material. Specifically, I removed the first paragraph fundamentally because it's CID background, which does not really belong here and it's easy to factor out with a single reference to 9146. Besides, Marco's suggested reflow made me realise this paragraph didn't connect well with the surrounding text.

---

Another bit I've changed is the registration policy for the RRC messages registry. I think it is for a STD/BCP document to change the contents of the registry, rather than pushing the responsibility to the DE.

---

rendered at: https://tlswg.org/dtls-rrc/marco-wglc-review/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc.html

[thomas-fossati]

@boaks @hannestschofenig: if you have time before Monday please have a look and comment, otherwise we will look at it in our call.

[thomas-fossati]

@hannestschofenig @boaks: Given Marco's ACK on the mailing list, I'll go ahead and merge this as agreed in our call this morning.