WG Chair nits for draft-ietf-secsh-break-00.txt

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld%east.sun.com@localhost>]

So, I'd like to do a last-call on this but there are the following
nits which will require a re-spin to resolve:

 1) security considerations section is missing.

s-c fodder: 

 Because "break" is typically used to enter low-level administrative
 or debugging functions, implementors of this extension SHOULD provide
 a mechanism to control whether this extension is accepted, and
 administrators should use care when deciding whether to enable this
 feature.

 2) typos:

> This operation SHOULD be support by most general purpose SSH clients.

"supported"?

>  The telnet protocolprovides a means to send a "BREAK" signal, which

missing space --------^

 3) no mention of what to do when the thing on the other end isn't
    (directly) connected to a traditional serial line.  I'm in favor of
    saying "MAY implement functionally similar implementation-defined
    behavior".   

    examples:
	- a ssh-to-telnet gateway could convert into the equivalent 
	telnet option.
	- a service processor providing remote console access may use some 
	other out-of-band signal to the system it manages rather than
	the traditional BREAK.. 

 4) usual normative/informative reference section gorp: these all look
    normative, so just "s/References/Normative References/"

					- Bill