Subject: [Curdle] second AD review of draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-15

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:22:32 -0500

Hi all,

I'm just about ready to send this document into IESG Evaluation, but
noticed a few nits while rereading it.  Since they're in areas that I
expect the IESG to be looking at, I'd like to have an updated revision of
the document available before I send it out to the IESG as a whole:

draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die is now RFC 8429, so we can update
that reference.

Additionally, part of the holdup for that document was to decide whether to
Obsolete RFC 4757 or move it to Historic, since we cannot do both.  The
Abstract of this document still says that it both Obsoletes and moves to
Historic RFC 4345 (and it has the Obsoletes: header); since we decided in
the RFC 8429 case to use "move to Historic", I think that's the right thing
to do here as well.  So we want to keep the "move to Historic" text but
drop the in-document and metadata "Obsoletes:" relationship.
(https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-designating-rfcs-historic/ has
some more background on the difference.)

On the other hand, since we are updating RFC 4253, we do need to mention
Updates: 4253 in document header.

We can also update to use the RFC 8174 version of the BCP 14 boilerplate.

Finally, the table in Section 3 seems to be formatted oddly, with the
column break appearing in the middle of "Encryption Algorithm Name" instead
of at the end of it.

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: Loganaden Velvindron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:30:42 +0400

> column break appearing in the middle of "Encryption Algorithm Name" instead

Thank you Benjami.

I've sent in -16. See the diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-16

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 18:38:42 -0500

> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-16

Thanks; I'll be sending both of these documents to the IESG shortly!

-Ben