Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art Lc review of draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:19:50 +0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 19 December 2010
IETF LC End Date: 3 January 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Editorial/Nits:
s2, para 2: 
> That is, NIST no longer considers it 
>    appropriate to use SHA-0 for any transitions associated with the use 
>    of cryptography
Is 'transitions' the intended word here?  'Operations' or 'transactions' 
seems to be better a choice.

s3.1: s/absent from published conference paper/absent from the published
conference paper/

Reference [MD2-his] (a draft in progress) is in the references but not
referred to. I don't see any places where it is needed.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:53:17 -0500

> seems to be better a choice.

Yet another case of the wrong word being spelled correctly! 
Transactions is definitely better.  I'll fix this.

> s3.1: s/absent from published conference paper/absent from the published

Will fix.

> referred to. I don't see any places where it is needed.

Yes this should be removed.

Thanks for the review!

spt