Re: draft-ietf-secsh-dns-04 comments

[Jakob Schlyter <jakob%crt.se@localhost>]

On Mon, 12 May 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Most of the comments should be easy to understand.  In 2.4, I think the
> language must be much more specific what's required.  "MUST .. unless" is
> not good, IMO.

thanks, I've integrated your changes. since this is only editoral changes,
I assume we do not need another last call.

> (looking back, you could also add a reference to RFC2434 in the IANA
> considerations section)

why?

> @@ -234,7 +234,9 @@
>           /                          fingerprint                          /
>           /                                                               /
>           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> -
> +==> please use the more common textual representation, seems much more
> +natural
> +==> the picture is 74 chars wide --- not good!

textual representation? please elaborate.


	jakob