Re: [Curdle] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-curves-10: (with COMMENT)

["Mark D. Baushke" <[e-mail]>]

Ron Frederick <[e-mail]> writes:

> The middle sentence here about failing the key exchange due to the
> length of the public keys kind of breaks up the references to “abort”
> here. I think it might read better as something like:
> 
>                    Alternative implementations of these functions
>        SHOULD abort when either input forces the shared secret to one
>        of a small set of values, as described in Section 7 of
>        [RFC7748].  Clients and servers MUST also abort if
>        the length of the received public keys are not the expected
>        lengths. An abort for these purposes is defined as a
>        disconnect (SSH_MSG_DISCONNECT) of the session and SHOULD use
>        the SSH_DISCONNECT_KEY_EXCHANGE_FAILED reason for the message
>        <xref target="IANA-REASON"/>.
> 
> That way, the paragraph consistently uses the “abort” terminology for
> both types of failures, and then goes on to explain what “abort”
> means.

You are correct. The paragraph reads better with your change.
I'll add it to the -12 revision after I get a few more comments.

	-- Mark