On May 30, 2014, at 11:56 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Uri, > At 11:16 30-05-2014, Uri Blumenthal wrote: >> I personally would not accept source code as the sole specification. IETF >> tradition has always been providing both the "verbal" description in English >> (or as close to it as practical) *plus* a reference implementation, preferably >> more than one. >> >> Mere existence of an implementation has never been an excuse to weasel out of >> actually documenting the protocol. > > IETF tradition is not to copy SecDir reviews to ietf@xxxxxxxx. I agree that it is good to have a verbal description of a specification in English. It helps to have an implementation. > > The draft documents a code point assignment; it is not about a protocol. > [Joe] My concern is that there is not enough information in the draft to know what goes into the hash that is the subject of the code point assignment. Perhaps it is obvious to someone who implemented the SSH code that is not documented in this draft, but it is not obvious to me as a reader of the draft. > Regards, > S. Moonesamy