Hi Ralph,
Thank you for your review. Sorry I missed it earlier.
On 09/12/2015 20:47, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
Nits/editorial comments:
Nicely written, very clear document.
Thank you.
idnits reports some lines too long and an unused reference.
I fixed the reference in my copy. I hope RFC Editor can help with lines
which are too long.
In the third paragraph of the Introduction, I suggest removing the parentheses and
editing the second sentence for clarity; specifically, what is "SCRAM data"?
I meant SCRAM requests and responses.
You could probably omit the parentheses in the second paragraph of Setion 3, as
well, I'm likely just arguing style.
Barry picked on this as well, so this was rewritten for clarity.
The last sentence of the last paragraph of sectino 3 was unclear to me: which
messages are referred to?
Message is the same as 'decoded "data" attribute' in the previous
sentence. I clarified that.
I think, in the phrase "fail the authentication" in the fifth paragraph of section 8, you are using
"fail" as a transitive verb, as in "the client considers the authentication of the message to
have failed"
... and does whatever is appropriate in this case. Which might be
closing the connection, retrying or trying another (non SCRAM) mechanism.
. If I have that write, I suggest rewriting the containing sentence to improve
the clarity.
Best Regards,
Alexey
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
