Re: Eyeballs needed.

[Jacob Nevins <jacobn+secsh%chiark.greenend.org.uk@localhost>]

Jon Bright writes:
> Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > draft-ietf-secsh-auth-kbdinteract-07.txt:
> >       ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc4256-diff.html
> >       ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc4256.txt
> 
> 3.1: If the "language tag is deprecated and SHOULD be the empty string",
> then it's surely not "as defined in [RFC-3066]"?  Should the 3066
> reference maybe move down to the "If the language tag is not the empty
> string..." paragraph?

Agree, I think.

> 3.2: As for 3.1 (or not, if I'm wrong).

In addition, I think the second language tag paragraph in section 3.2
("If the language tag is not the empty string...") should be mostly cut.
It seems to have been lifted straight from 3.1 and doesn't make much
sense in 3.2 (talking about requirements it places on the server when
it's emitted _by_ the server).

However, if that's too drastic at this stage, so be it.