Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-secsh-publickey-subsystem-03.txt

From: Jon Bright <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:00:52 +0200

der Mouse wrote:
> 
> Lines 242-244:
>    The version packet, as well as all requests and responses described
>    in Section 3 are a description of the 'name' field and the data part
>    of the packet.
> s/3/3,/

Done.

> Line 304:
>    SHOULD be sent.  Note that normally, status messages are only sent by
> s/only sent by/sent by only/

I've not done this one - the result struck me as more awkward than what 
we have.  Instead, I've made it "Note that normally, status messages are 
only sent by the server (in response to requests from the client)."  I 
presume this achieves the clarification you were after...

> Line 367:
>    SSH_PUBLICKEY_ACCESS_DENIED
> s/$/./

Done.

> find it as clear as I do; you might want to reword it.  Suggestion:
>    SSH_PUBLICKEY_ATTRIBUTE_NOT_SUPPORTED.  For the purposes of a
>    mandatory attribute, mere storage of the attribute is not
>    sufficient; the server must understand and implement the intent of
>    the attribute.

I've gone with:

"For the purposes of a mandatory attribute, mere storage of the 
attribute is not sufficient -- rather, the server must understand and 
implement the intent of the attribute."

-- 
Jon Bright
Silicon Circus Ltd.
http://www.siliconcircus.com

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:49:37 -0400 (EDT)

> I've not done this one - the result struck me as more awkward than
> what we have.  Instead, I've made it "Note that normally, status
> messages are only sent by the server (in response to requests from
> the client)."  I presume this achieves the clarification you were
> after...

It still suffers from the problem: the "only" is attached to the wrong
thing.  See http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/modifiers.htm for a
short discussion of the issue.  If you really think that this is clear
enough even with "only" in the wrong place, well, go ahead.  I just
point out things I think need fixing.  You don't have to agree with me
about all (or even any) of them; it's your document, not mine. :)

>> Suggestion:

Fine by me.

/~\ 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: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:12:43 -0400

> about all (or even any) of them; it's your document, not mine. :)

Indeed it does.  However, I believe another permutation solves the problem 
without sounding quite as awkward.  If you say 'sent only by', then 'only' 
attaches to the prepositional phrase "by the server".

OTOH, it could be argued that if status messages are sent only by the 
server, and the server never talks to itself, then they are also only sent 
by the server, and never received by it.  :-)

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:25:19 -0400 (EDT)

[warning: linguistic logic-chopping ahead.  Executive summary: "sent
only by" is OK with me.]

>> It still suffers from the problem: the "only" is attached to the
>> wrong thing.  [...]
> Indeed it does.  However, I believe another permutation solves the
> problem without sounding quite as awkward.  If you say 'sent only
> by', then 'only' attaches to the prepositional phrase "by the
> server".

Mmm, that's true.  When I get into misplaced-modifier mode, I start
reading such things far more strictly, which leads to interpreting
"sent only by the server" as "sent only by, not below, on, without, or
any other preposition, the server".  But I think you're right, that
without special marking, the whole prepositional phrase is what the
modifier will attach to; I'd write "sent only *by* the server" (and
emphasize correspondingly if speaking) if I really meant to attach it
to the preposition itself.

> server, and the server never talks to itself, then they are also only
> sent by the server, and never received by it.  :-)

Yes - but are they generated by it?  Logged by it?  Soldered by it?
Lubricated by it?  There are lots of other verbs which could go there,
some of which (unlike my latter two examples :-) aren't excluded by
semantic considerations.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign

---

From: Jon Bright <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:55:12 +0200

> thing.  See http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/modifiers.htm for a

I disagree.  Maybe I'm wrong, but imho, "only" is modifying the verb, 
not the server.  As such, it complies with the strict interpretation on 
that page: 'Many careful writers will insist that "only" be placed 
immediately before the word or phrase it modifies'.  In their example, 
"barely" is indeed modifying "twenty yards" and not "kicked", but I 
don't think that's the case here.

Aside from what the strictest rules of grammar say on the subject, 
"...are sent by only the server..." sounds.. well.. awful (to my ears).

---

From: der Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:04:49 -0400 (EDT)

>>> [...] status messages are only sent by the server [...]
>> wrong thing.  See http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/modifiers.htm
> not the server.

Yes, I see it that way too - and that's why I see it as wrong.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the intent, but in the context, it seemed
clear (to me) that the intent was to say "normally, nobody but the
server sends these" (in which case the "only" needs to be attached to
the server, or perhaps the "by the server" phrase, as was mentioned
upthread), not "normally, the server does nothing with these but send
them" (which is what you have if the "only" modifies the verb).

> "...are sent by only the server..." sounds.. well.. awful (to my

I agree, though I'd put it less strongly than "awful".  That's part of
the reason I'd be content with "... are sent only by the server".

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign