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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:30:42AM +0400, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:22 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> 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

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

-Ben