Re: Language negotiation clarification requested

[Chris Newman <Chris.Newman%Sun.COM@localhost>]

begin quotation by Nicolas Williams on 2002/12/3 14:18 -0800:
> Additionally, the SSHv2 drafts should reference RFC3066, not RFC1766
> (the former obsoletes the latter).

begin quotation by Bill Sommerfeld on 2002/12/3 17:57 -0500:

> the core drafts are currently "frozen" except for process nits.
>
> i'm taking this as yet another "defer until we come back to draft
> standard" issue.

A normative reference to an obsolete RFC is a process nit.  If the ADs 
notice, they will tell you to update the reference before publication 
(although fixing it in RFC editor 48-hour last call is probably fine).

The other points are valid, but I concur with the decision to defer them.

               - Chris