Ron Frederick <ronf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Mark,
>
> A couple of minor issues with the recommended text (grammatical, not
> technical):
As always, any feedback greatfully received.
> On Feb 15, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Mark D. Baushke <mdb=40juniper.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Suggestion to the reviewer of replacement paragraphs before the table in
> > section 4 "Summary Guidance for Key Exchange Method Names Implementations"
> >
> > [snip]
> > It is suggested that the MUST NOT key exchange method code be
> > removed from the any implementations using them.
>
> This should be “from any” instead of “from the any”.
Hmmm... I seem to have managed to lose what I intended to write. I will
suggest this as a replacement:
It is suggested that the code which implements a "MUST NOT" key
exchange method have that implementation code be removed.
> > The Implement column is the current recommendations of this RFC. Key
> > Exchange Method Names are listed alphabetically. This is ordering is
> > not intended to be the order used in either the server or client
> > negotiation lists.
>
> This should be “This ordering is” instead of “This is ordering is”.
Yes.
The Implement column is the current recommendations of this RFC. Key
Exchange Method Names are listed alphabetically. This ordering is not
intended to be the order used in either the server or client
negotiation lists.
Thank you very much for your review of the text I wrote.
Be safe, stay healthy,
-- Mark
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
