Document: draft-ietf-krb-wg-gssapi-cfx-07
Reviewer: Michael Patton
Date: April 2, 2004

Summary:This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

I found three extremely minor nits and one typo

In one paragraph in the introduction it talks about "newer" and
"older" by reference to [KRBCLAR], but that only defines "newer" and
says others are just not "newer" but never refers to them as "older",
this could use a small amount of wordsmithing to avoid possible
ambiguity.  This document elsewhere refers to them as "not-newer", so
maybe fixing that one paragraph to use the slightly awkward, but more
consistent "not newer"...section 6 also uses "older" for these.


We have this table and sentence together:

         Token               TOK_ID Value in Hex  
        ----------------------------------------- 
         KRB_AP_REQ            01 00 
         KRB_AP_REP            02 00 
         KRB_ERROR             03 00 
             
   Where Kerberos message KRB_AP_REQUEST, KRB_AP_REPLY, and KRB_ERROR 
   are defined in [KRBCLAR].   
Are the two sets of KRB_ things supposed to be the same?  If so, they
shouldn't be abbreviated in one place and not the other.  If not, I'd
like to see something that explains the diffrence.  Later the shorter
forms are the only ones used, I suspect that the longer ones in the
prose should have used the abbreviated form.

Is RFC2026 really a normative reference, it's only referred to in the
ID boilerplate, which will go away...


Typo
====

"If the application supply," should be "If the application supplies,"