On 12/19/10 9:19 AM, Elwyn Davies 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-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 19 December 2010
IETF LC End Date: 3 January 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Editorial/Nits:
s2, para 2:
That is, NIST no longer considers it
appropriate to use SHA-0 for any transitions associated with the use
of cryptography
Is 'transitions' the intended word here? 'Operations' or 'transactions'
seems to be better a choice.
Yet another case of the wrong word being spelled correctly!
Transactions is definitely better. I'll fix this.
s3.1: s/absent from published conference paper/absent from the published
conference paper/
Will fix.
Reference [MD2-his] (a draft in progress) is in the references but not
referred to. I don't see any places where it is needed.
Yes this should be removed.
Thanks for the review!
spt
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
