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

[Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]>]

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,
>
> Ben