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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

But first, I had only "comments" on these docs, and had a noObjection
recorded for the documents. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com]
> Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2003 15:59
> To: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-14
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
OK

> 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.
> 
I think Harald already gave you the answer: RFC RFC3232 obsoletes RFC1700
Can do with RFC-Editor note I think

> 3.  I do not think there is an alternative to RFC 2279 yet.  
> Is it worth holding up this document set.
> 
If you were to make the reference draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-05.txt
then that would not hold this document.
draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-05.txt is already in RFC-Ed queue and will
certainly get published before this newly approved document, no?

Can do with RFC-Editor note

> >- references not split in normative/informative
> 
> Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-15.
 
OK

> *****
> 
> >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.
> 
OK.

> >- 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.
> 
OK

> >- 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.
> 
See comments on 2279bis above

> >- References HISTORIC RFC1884
> 
> It is an informational reference.  Okay?
> 
My point is that 1884 was obsoleted by 2373, which in turn was
obsoleted by 3513. So probably the ref should be to RFC3513.
I can live with it.

> >- References obsoleted RFC1766
> 
> RFC 1766 --> RFC 3066.
> 
OK

> >- References not split in normative/informative
> 
> Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-connect-18.
> 
OK

> *****
> 
> >draft-ietf-secsh-transport-16
> >- Referencing issues (similar to above)
> 
> 1. References are divided into normative and informative.
> 
> 2. References RFC 3066.
> 
OK. But pls see my note on rfc2279bis above

> *****
> 
> >draft-ietf-secsh-userauth-17
> >- Referencing issues (similar to above)
> 
> 1. References are divided into normative and informative.
> 
OK

> 2. References RFC 3066.
> 
OK

But see my earlier note on 2279bis

> *****
> 
> >draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-04.txt
> >- citations in abstract
> 
> Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-05.
> 
OK

> >- no IPR statement
> 
> Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-05.
> 
OK

> >- Referencing issues (similar to above)
> 
> References are divided into normative and informative.
> 
OK

> >- Does not explain that MUST and such terminology is based on
> >   RFC2119 and does not reference 2119
> 
> Fixed in draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-05.
> 
OK

> >Most of these docs also have lines longer than 72
> 
> I did not check this on the new set of documents.
> 
$ /bin/checkpage.awk <drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-05.txt
Long page at 59
Long line at 147 with 80 chars
Long line at 149 with 73 chars
Long line at 411 with 80 chars
-: 3 lines longer than 72 characters, max 80
-: 1 pages longer than 58 lines, max 669 lines

$ /bin/checkpage.awk <drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-connect-18.txt
Long page at 59
Long line at 252 with 73 chars
Long line at 889 with 74 chars
Long line at 904 with 74 chars
Long line at 905 with 74 chars
Long line at 914 with 74 chars
Long line at 918 with 73 chars
Long line at 920 with 75 chars
-: 7 lines longer than 72 characters, max 75
-: 1 pages longer than 58 lines, max 1229 lines

$ /bin/checkpage.awk <drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-15.txt
Long page at 59
Long line at 570 with 74 chars
Long line at 573 with 73 chars
Long line at 854 with 76 chars
-: 3 lines longer than 72 characters, max 76
-: 1 pages longer than 58 lines, max 1621 lines

But I guess RFC-Editor will and can deal with this
Bert