Please publish draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile-09.txt as Informational

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

It is the consensus of the Secure Shell working group that
draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile-09.txt should be published as an
Informational RFC.

Here's a draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
checklist.

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes; no concerns.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

   1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

There is strong consensus to publish.

   1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes.

There is one marginal nit:  Strings of the general form "<verbed> by
me@myhost" appear in comments in two of the examples; if the IESG
believes that this should be changed to an example.com domain, please
issue an RFC editor note to this effect; the exact string used here is
not critical to the specification.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

Yes; the one ID reference is to a document in the RFC Editor queue.

					- Bill