Document: draft-ietf-secsh-newmodes-05.txt
Reviewer: Avri Doria
Date: 31 august 2005
Telechat Date: 01 Sept 2005

Overview: No Objection with questions and comments


Note:   I am not a security person and thus this review constitutes a
naive review that focuses of form and understandability instead of
technical content.

General: well written and basically understandable even to the non-expert.

Questions: 

1.  does SSH count as one of the acronyms that is so well known that
    it can be included in an abstract without expanding?  I tend to
    think so, but I bring up the question for completeness sake.

2. i assume the birthday property (3.2) is well know.  For the naive reader
   it might be good to have a reference to where this is explained.


Comments:

in 3  Last sentence:  the note is tantalizing but doesn't explain
  why it might be the case.  Since it is explained later in the document, it
  should at least have a forward xref to section 6.1.

3.1 Several SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs without any explanation of why not
  MUST or MUST NOT.  Perhaps this is due to the note about one
  recommendation taking precedence over another recommendation, but
  it is not clear that is the case.  In seems that the
  discussion in in 6.1 is relevant, but that is rather far away from the
  requirements themselves.  Perhaps another forward xref would help.