Subject: Re: WG Chair Nits & start of WG Last Call: draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile-06.txt

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:24:56 -0400

Joe,

It looks like we ratholed on the line termination question.  I'm going
to take that as an indication that nothing more serious needs to be done
to the document.

I believe the consensus position is to weaken section 3.1, which
currently reads:

> 3.1  Line Termination Characters
>
>   Implementations are REQUIRED to read files using any of the common
>   line termination sequence, <CR>, <LF> or <CR><LF>.
>
>   Implementations may generate files using whichever of these line
>   termination conventions is most convenient.

to instead say something along the lines of:

    Implementations SHOULD generate public key files using their 
    system's local text file representation.

    In the event that public key files are not transferred as text files,
    implementations SHOULD be prepared to read files using any of the 
    common line termination sequence, <CR>, <LF> or <CR><LF>.

I believe this captures the core of the objections to the 
original section 3.1 text.

Comments?

						- Bill

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:49:30 -0600

> original section 3.1 text.

Expect a new draft issued in the next couple of days?

Thanks,

Joseph

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:00:57 -0400 (EDT)

> It looks like we ratholed on the line termination question.  [...]

> I believe the consensus position is to weaken section 3.1, [to]
> something along the lines of:

>     In the event that public key files are not transferred as text
>     files, implementations SHOULD be prepared to read files using any
>     of the common line termination sequence, <CR>, <LF> or <CR><LF>.

As one of the noisier participants in the line termination blather, I'm
prepared to sign off on that wording.  (Maybe the second paragraph
should say something more like "To ease interoperability in case public
key files are...", which I think is closer to the intended meaning?)

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       [email-masked]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:08:02 -0600

Sorry, this got lost in the clutter and I didn't get it addressed
before I respun the draft.

> key files are...", which I think is closer to the intended meaning?)

Hmm... that does seem a little better... I'd be happy to change
it to this... but Bill just sent a publish request.

Bill, should I respin again?  Is this something that can be
done during the RFC editor process?

Thanks,

Joseph

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:05:53 -0400

> it to this... but Bill just sent a publish request.

Whoops. 

> Bill, should I respin again?  

It's up to you but if it's easy you might as well update it now.

> Is this something that can be done during the RFC editor process?

You can do it that way, too, but I think it would be easier to get it
now.

					- Bill