Re: [netconf] Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Barry Leiba

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

All good, Ken, and thanks for addressing my comments.

Barry

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:27 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> NETCONF WG, the SecDir review of the “ssh-client-server” draft was posted to datatracker ~3 weeks ago, but somehow the WG wasn’t CC-ed, or else I missed it ;)   I’ve reproduced the review below; the original is located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server-24-secdir-lc-leiba-2021-06-15.
>
>
> Hi Barry  thank you for your review!
>
> Barry> I see nothing of substance here to comment on, and only
> Barry>  have two minor editorial comments.
>
> Excellent!  :)
>
>
> Barry> In Section 2:
> Barry>    The lists of algorithms are ordered such that, if multiple
> Barry>    algorithms are permitted by the client, the algorithm that appears
> Barry>    first in its list that is also permitted by the server is used for
> Barry>    the SSH transport layer connection.
> Barry>
> Barry> I found this a little awkward to read, and it also seems that
> Barry>  the ordering is only significant for the client list, and not
> Barry>  for the server list.  May I suggest this minor re-wording?:
> Barry>
> Barry> NEW
> Barry>    The lists of permitted algorithms are in decreasing order of usage
> Barry>    preference.  The algorithm that appears first in the client list
> Barry>    that also appears in the server list is the one that is used for
> Barry>    the SSH transport layer connection.
> Barry> END
>
> Replaced.   And good catch.
>
>
> Barry> In “Since the module in this document only define groupings”,
> Barry>  make it “modules”, plural, to match “define” (three instances).
>
>
> Another good catch, but I think the better fix is:
>
> OLD:   Since the module in this document only define groupings, ...
> NEW:  Since this module only define groupings, …
>
> Agreed?   [and, yes, I patched all three instances of this construct]
>
>
> Kent // as author
>
>
>