Re: Eyeballs needed.

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA@localhost>]

There are numerous changes made which I either agree with or don't care
about; I'm mentioning only the things that I would change back or do
entirely differently.

I'm restricting myself to copy-edits.  I note at least one semantic
point, but you say it's too late for them, and it's by no means a
catastrophic showstopper.

I'm also basing this on diffs between the drafts and the proto-RFCs.  I
may miss a few things this way, but it means I can get this done in
hours rather than days.

Section numbers are those of the proto-RFC, when they differ from those
of the draft.

> draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-12.txt:
> 	ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc4250-diff.html
> 	ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc4250.txt

4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5.2: I too would prefer "which" over "that" here, though I
agree the difference is slight.

4.3.4, first bullet point: I prefer "...'reason code' value consistent
with the...".  I'd also take the last sentence out of the passive
voice; perhaps something like "Implementors should first attempt...".

4.5.2, in the description of the XCASE value: a backslash processing
glitch has struck here:

-                             equivalents with "\".
+                            equivalents with "

(Despite the indentation difference in the diff output, the new text
looks right when viewed alone - there presumably is a tab-vs-spaces
difference involved.)

4.9.5: I think this change is wrong, unless s/Names/names/ is also
done, and even then I don't like it.

4.11.1: When describing des-cbc, I see "FIPS-46-3" on one line and
"FIPS 46-3" on the next line, apparently referring to the same
document.  Shouldn't they both be spelled the same?

6.2: When describing [FIPS-46-3], I'd like to see it made explicit that
the NIST is a *USA* body; I see nothing there indicating which nation's
National Institutes of Standards and Technology is relevant.

> draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-22.txt:
> 	ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc4251-diff.html
> 	ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc4251.txt

4.5, second-last paragraph: I think the original text is substantially
better here; I think this is more like synonyms used as parenthetical
explanation than a list of qualifiers.

5, describing a name-list: I think the last comma here needs to go (it
was in the original; there is a change here - ; to , - but I think it's
good).  That is, s/names, nor/names nor/.

8, last paragraph: everywhere else "as described in [RFC2434]" has been
preceded by a comma; for consistency, I think it should be here too.

9.1: I'd
	s/when knowing/given/
	s/in properly implementing/of properly implementing/

9.2: s/messages to the user/messages, to the user/ - "such as error or
debug messages" is an explanatory parenthesis, so it needs a comma
after it as well as before.

9.3.1, end of third paragraph: s/longer/long/

9.3.3, second paragraph: s/more so true/more true/

9.3.3, third paragraph: the editor inserted a comma into the "If the
session stays active lojng enough" sentence; I think this comma is
wrong and should be removed: s/sequence number,/sequence number/

9.3.4, last paragraph: s/non-security critical/non-security-critical/.

9.3.7: shouldn't the reference to [SSH-TRANS] give an explicit section
number instead of just saying `the section "Diffie-Hellman Key
Exchange"'?

9.3.9: I'd like to see s/attempts of traffic/attempts at traffic/.

10: As in 4250 section 6.2, I'd like to see the NIST explicitly called
out as a USA body.

That's all I have time for right now.  I'm going to be AFK all weekend;
if the authors want to push them out before I get done, then, well, I
just won't get a proofread done on the rest. :-/

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse%rodents.montreal.qc.ca@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B