Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-07-30
Requested 2017-07-16
Authors denis bider
I-D last updated 2017-07-24
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Matthew A. Miller (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -10 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Matthew A. Miller (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Matthew A. Miller
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2017-07-24
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info-10
Reviewer: Matthew Miller
Review Date: 2017-07-24
IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-30
IESG Telechat date: N/A


This document is ready with an issue.

I found this document very coherent and easy to follow.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

My only issue borders on nit, but sided with nit as I can see it
potentially causing confusion for an implementer in the future.

Section 2.5. "Interpretation of Extension Names and Values" explicitly
states in the second paragraph a condition where the relative order of
extension-names in an EXT_INFO message is irrelevant.  However, the rest
of the section seems to imply to me that relative order is not important;
so to explicitly call out a scenario seems to imply that relative order
*is* relevant/important, sometimes.  If relative order is expected to be
important most of the time, I think it helpful to explicitly state that
and give a rationale for it.

Nits/editorial comments:

* RFC 5226 is referenced by this document, but is obsoleted by RFC 8126.