Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,
Thanks for your review.

Ben Campbell wrote:

>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
>
>Document: draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03
>Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>Review Date: 2011-04-11
>IETF LC End Date: 2011-04-15
>
>Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a couple of editorial comments that should be considered prior to final publication.
>
>Major issues: None
>
>Minor issues: None
>
>Nits/editorial comments:
>
>-- Note following abstract:
>
>Will this note stay in the RFC? The note makes me unsure whether the resulting RFC is intended to actually execute the deprecation, recommend deprecation, or start a discussion about deprecation. I assume from the IANA section, you intend the first.-
>
The note removed and the second sentence of the abstracted reworded to 
say that the document is deprecating/moving to historic.

>-- Section 1, 7B. "Lack of hash agility."
>
>Can you elaborate on what this means? (I think I know, but I don't know if it will be obvious to all readers)
>
Some explanation added.