I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-hansen-scram-sha256 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 04-Aug-2015 IETF LC End Date: 25-Aug-2015 IESG Telechat date: not yet on any telechat Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard The change to PS addresses the concern I expressed in the review below. miniscule-nit: I still think the extra URI section after the references is not needed. RjS On 4/2/15 1:41 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > . > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-hansen-scram-sha256 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2Apr2015 > IETF LC End Date: 24Apr2015 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: Ready for publication as Informational, with nits that should > be considered. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Nit: > It raises flags for me when an Informational document uses "Updates" > on a standards track document. > I would argue that this does _not_ update 5802. IANA did the things > that 5802 requested, and this document > is requesting something else that happens to change those things. That > makes this more of a "see also" than > a "the protocol changed", and I think the Updates should be removed. > > I don't feel super strongly about the difference in _this particular > case_, hence its classification as a Nit. > But for consistency, and avoiding the issue of having an Informational > update a PS, I hope you choose to remove it. > > Editorial comment: > The URLs in the references section seem superfluous since you've > already expanded them in the introduction? > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art