Subject: Russ's comments on draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-10.txt

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:03:49 -0400

Russ made the following comments, which appear in the I-D tracker.

>   Since Base64 Encoding is used, but all of MIME is not used, it is
>   probably better to replace [MIME] with a reference to RFC 3548.

I agree, the reference to RFC2045 section 6.8 can be replaced with a 
reference to RFC3548 section 3.  The latter document didn't exist when this 
was written.  I've made this change in my copy of the document source.

>   Please delete section 11 prior to publication as an RFC.

Yes; that was always the intent.

-- Jeff

---

From: Ben Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:27:38 +0100

>was written.  I've made this change in my copy of the document source.

I observe that RFC 3548 is Informational, so by RFC 3967 the normative
reference to it has to be mentioned in the Last Call notice for gsskeyex.

-- 
Ben Harris

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:35:08 -0400

> reference to it has to be mentioned in the Last Call notice for gsskeyex.

The IETF-wide last call period for gsskeyex; as I understand how 3967 is
being implemented by the IESG, this would require another last-call
cycle.

Speaking just for myself, I don't think this degree of simplification is
worth the delay it would apparently now require.

As a side note, it appears that there isn't yet a repository listing
informational rfc's which are ok to reference normatively from standards
track documents.

						- Bill

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:47:35 -0400

[My original message was CC'd to my coauthors and to the IESG.  I don't 
know why they were dropped in Ben's reply; I've readded the IESG but will 
assume my coauthors read the ietf-ssh list].

> informational rfc's which are ok to reference normatively from standards

I agree that this level of simplification is not worth another IETF last 
call.  Since Ben's comment is included above, the IESG should now be aware 
of the issue; let's let them decide if the reference can be updated without 
a new last call, or if it should be left as-is.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:04:23 -0400

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jeffrey> [My original message was CC'd to my coauthors and to the
    Jeffrey> IESG.  I don't know why they were dropped in Ben's reply;
    Jeffrey> I've readded the IESG but will assume my coauthors read
    Jeffrey> the ietf-ssh list].

    Jeffrey> On Wednesday, August 31, 2005 02:35:08 PM -0400 Bill
    Jeffrey> Sommerfeld
    Jeffrey> <[email-masked]> wrote:

    >>> I observe that RFC 3548 is Informational, so by RFC 3967 the
    >>> normative reference to it has to be mentioned in the Last Call
    >>> notice for gsskeyex.
    >>  The IETF-wide last call period for gsskeyex; as I understand
    >> how 3967 is being implemented by the IESG, this would require
    >> another last-call cycle.
    >> 
    >> Speaking just for myself, I don't think this degree of
    >> simplification is worth the delay it would apparently now
    >> require.
    >> 
    >> As a side note, it appears that there isn't yet a repository
    >> listing informational rfc's which are ok to reference
    >> normatively from standards track documents.

    Jeffrey> I agree that this level of simplification is not worth
    Jeffrey> another IETF last call.  Since Ben's comment is included
    Jeffrey> above, the IESG should now be aware of the issue; let's
    Jeffrey> let them decide if the reference can be updated without a
    Jeffrey> new last call, or if it should be left as-is.

I believe it would require another last call; I will not update the
rfc editor note to make this simplification.