Re: Eyeballs needed.

[Frank Cusack <fcusack%fcusack.com@localhost>]

On November 18, 2005 12:15:52 AM +0000 Jacob Nevins <jacobn+secsh%chiark.greenend.org.uk@localhost> wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, I haven't really been paying attention here.  Does Martin or
myself need to do anything?  The changes being proposed sound fine to me.

-frank