Re: Eyeballs needed.

[Chris Lonvick <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost>]

Hi,

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Jon Bright wrote:

> Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> >  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
>
> I didn't catch anything.
>
> >  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
>
> There are a couple of places where I disagree with the change from "which" to 
> "that", but I guess that's a taste thing.  I'm also told that British English 
> (which I speak) tends to use "which" more than US English, so maybe it's just 
> my dialect showing through.
>
> End of section 9.3.1: "If there are no unsent packages, ..." should be "If 
> there are no unsent packets, ...".

I'll get that changed.

> Middle of 9.3.3: "If the session stays active long enough, however, this 
> sequence number, will wrap." - the comma added after "number" seems 
> superfluous to me.

I'll get that changed.

> 9.5.1: "Implementors SHOULD provide mechanisms for administrators to control 
> which services are exposed to limit the..." - seems to me there should be an 
> extra comma here: "...which services are exposed, to limit the...".

It looks OK to me without the extra comma.

> Also, 
> we're using "implementor" here (which I prefer).  But at the start of 9.4.3, 
> we have "implementer".  Hopefully no-one's going to mention hobgoblins if I 
> suggest that one or the other should be picked and used :-)

I'm going to ask for a global change s/implementor/implementer/ since the 
sections at the end use the latter.

> 9.5.3: The sentence beginning "It is RECOMMENDED that X11 display 
> implementations default to allow the display..." seems to me more awkward 
> after the RFC Editor's changes than it was before them.  My version would be: 
> "It is RECOMMENDED that X11 display implementations default to allowing the 
> display to be opened only over local IPC.  It is RECOMMENDED that SSH server 
> implementations that support X11 forwarding default to allowing the display 
> to be opened only over local IPC.  On single-user systems systems, it might 
> be reasonable to default to allowing the local display to be opened over 
> TCP/IP."

It looks OK to me the way it is.

> That's all I saw in -architecture.  I'll be reading the others later.

Thanks,
Chris