Re: Russ's comments on draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-10.txt

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf%mit.edu@localhost>]

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz%cmu.edu@localhost> writes:

    Jeffrey> [My original message was CC'd to my coauthors and to the
    Jeffrey> IESG.  I don't know why they were dropped in Ben's reply;
    Jeffrey> I've readded the IESG but will assume my coauthors read
    Jeffrey> the ietf-ssh list].

    Jeffrey> On Wednesday, August 31, 2005 02:35:08 PM -0400 Bill
    Jeffrey> Sommerfeld
    Jeffrey> <sommerfeld%sun.com@localhost> wrote:

    >> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 14:27, Ben Harris wrote:
    >>> I observe that RFC 3548 is Informational, so by RFC 3967 the
    >>> normative reference to it has to be mentioned in the Last Call
    >>> notice for gsskeyex.
    >>  The IETF-wide last call period for gsskeyex; as I understand
    >> how 3967 is being implemented by the IESG, this would require
    >> another last-call cycle.
    >> 
    >> Speaking just for myself, I don't think this degree of
    >> simplification is worth the delay it would apparently now
    >> require.
    >> 
    >> As a side note, it appears that there isn't yet a repository
    >> listing informational rfc's which are ok to reference
    >> normatively from standards track documents.

    Jeffrey> I agree that this level of simplification is not worth
    Jeffrey> another IETF last call.  Since Ben's comment is included
    Jeffrey> above, the IESG should now be aware of the issue; let's
    Jeffrey> let them decide if the reference can be updated without a
    Jeffrey> new last call, or if it should be left as-is.

I believe it would require another last call; I will not update the
rfc editor note to make this simplification.