Re: [Curdle] Kathleen Moriarty's Yes on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-dh-group-exchange-05: (with COMMENT)

[Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Fantastic. I just hadn't heard from him yet and wanted to make sure we
>>> agreed on who had the job
>>>
>>
>> Hello Eric,
>>
>> It's my fault for not responding earlier. I admit that the IESG review
>> is quite complex for someone who is going through it the first time. I
>> was more comfortable with Mark responding as he has more experience
>> than me, dealing with the IESG.
>
> Thank you.  I guess some of the nuances can be confusing, like a YES
> ballot with a comment.  The last suggested update would be very
> helpful so anyone reading it would know that they shouldn't just go
> for the minimum as that could be phased out within a few years.
>
>

Yes, and it seems that it's hard to follow the point at which
consensus is reached. I have attempted to address your concern, and
most of the others in rev 06.

Changelog:
an->any;
typo from warren;
fix normative reference & ipr trust from mirja;
include section about logging in security considerations from Benoit
Claise and OPS DIR; include suggestions about 3072 bits as an option
for implementation should the need arise in the coming years from
K.Moriarty and S. Dawkins.