Document: review of draft-ietf-sasl-anon-04.txt
Review: Spencer Dawkins
Date: 13 december 2004 

This specification is reasonable for publication as a proposed
standard. All of my comments could be addressed in AUTH-48.

My nit collection looks like this:

- how deeply embedded is the word "trace" in the SASL community? The
  document defines it more than once, consistently, but every time I
  saw the word I kept finding myself wondering what "trace" had to do
  with this protocol specification. If it's too late to change it,
  that's fine - I'm just asking.

- Does this document replace RFC 2245, or obsolete it (the RFC-Editor
  word), or something else?

- I thought "No additional characters are prohibited" was awkward - is
  the document saying "All other characters are permitted"?

- I thought "Information about who accesses an anonymous archive on a
  sensitive subject (e.g., sexual abuse) has strong privacy needs" was
  awkward - at the very least, "who" has strong privacy needs, but the
  sentence seems to say the information has strong privacy
  needs. Possibly "Anyone who accesses an anonymous archive on a
  sensitive subject (e.g. sexual abuse) likely has strong privacy
  needs"?