Re: Eyeballs needed.

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

Hi,

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, der Mouse wrote:

> 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.

Again, I'm not going to address these unless someone really pushes.

> 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...".

I made a change.  Please review.

> 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.)

I'll get that reinstated.

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

It's more -r- less consistent with the similar paragraphs in the rest of 
the document.

> 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?

Yup.

> 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.

OK.  That's many places.  Please review to make sure I caught them all.

> > 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.

OK.

> 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/.

OK.

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

OK.

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

"when knowing" can be different from "given".  I'm going to leave these.

> 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.

I modified it.  Please check.

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

OK.

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

OK.

> 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/

Yup.

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

OK.

> 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"'?

Nah.

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

OK.

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

OK.

> 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

Thanks,
Chris