Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-14

[Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>]

Bert:

The authors have just sent an updated set of documents to the 
Internet-Drafts repository.  They CCed me on the submission, so I was able 
to check out your comments.  I believe that they have been handled, 
although there are some obvious spelling errors, but I am happy to let the 
RFC Editor fix them.

When the updates appear in the next few days, please confirm that your 
issues are resolved for the whole set of documents.

Russ


******

> draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-14
>
> - has references to obsoleted RFCs (RFC1700, RFC1766)
>   or soon to be obsoleted (RFC 2279)

1.  RFC 1766 --> RFC 3066.

2.  The RFC Index says (I may not have the most recent version, but it is 
not too old):

   1700 Assigned Numbers. J. Reynolds, J. Postel. October 1994. (Format:
        TXT=458860 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1340) (Also STD0002) (Status:
        STANDARD)

The document does not seem to have an alternative.

3.  I do not think there is an alternative to RFC 2279 yet.  Is it worth 
holding up this document set.

> - references not split in normative/informative

Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-15.

*****

> draft-ietf-secsh-connect-17
>
> - Does not explain that MUST and such terminology is based on
>   RFC2119 and does not reference 2119

Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-connect-18.

> - Uses example IP addresses that are not in the range of
>   addresses we have set apart for such examples.
>   Pages 9, 15

Please confirm that you are okay with this in draft-ietf-secsh-connect-18.

> - references soon to be obsoleted (RFC 2279)

I do not think there is an alternative to RFC 2279 yet.  Is it worth 
holding up this document set.

> - References HISTORIC RFC1884

It is an informational reference.  Okay?

> - References obsoleted RFC1766

RFC 1766 --> RFC 3066.

> - References not split in normative/informative

Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-connect-18.

*****

> draft-ietf-secsh-transport-16
> - Referencing issues (similar to above)

1. References are divided into normative and informative.

2. References RFC 3066.

*****

> draft-ietf-secsh-userauth-17
> - Referencing issues (similar to above)

1. References are divided into normative and informative.

2. References RFC 3066.

*****

> draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-04.txt
> - citations in abstract

Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-05.

> - no IPR statement

Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-05.

> - Referencing issues (similar to above)

References are divided into normative and informative.

> - Does not explain that MUST and such terminology is based on
>   RFC2119 and does not reference 2119

Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-05.

> Most of these docs also have lines longer than 72

I did not check this on the new set of documents.