Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile-09.txt

From: Jacob Nevins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:32:49 +0100

[I realise that these comments are rather late as this document is on
its way into the IESG. I don't think any of these comments should hold
up publication, but if the document is respun for other reasons it
would be nice if they were taken into account.]

Neither the document title nor the abstract mention that this document
defines a standard textual representation for public key fingerprints.
This makes it harder than it could be to discover where the
fingerprint format is defined.

I suggest the following paragraph be added to the Abstract:

   In addition, this document defines a standard textual
   representation for SSH public key fingerprints.

Also, typos/nits (in addition to der Mouse's list in
<[email-masked]>):

3.5 (Differences with RFC1421 PEM formats):
|    Implemetors should take care to notice that while the format is

s/Implemetors/Implementors/

|    o  The other specifications use different BEGIN/END delimeters (five

s/delimeters/delimiters/

3.6 (Examples)

|    (note that the examples all wrap before 72 lines to meet ietf

s/lines/columns/
s/ietf/IETF/

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:06:40 -0400

> would be nice if they were taken into account.]

It's currently sitting in "Publication Requested" state waiting for Sam
to have time to review it.

I believe the comments you've made are reasonable editorial corrections,
and should be included with any respin done (if any) for the sake of AD
review.

					- Bill