Document: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 19 December 2010
IETF LC End Date: 3 January 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Editorial/Nits:
s2, para 2: 
> > That is, NIST no longer considers it 
> >    appropriate to use SHA-0 for any transitions associated with the use 
> >    of cryptography
Is 'transitions' the intended word here?  'Operations' or 'transactions' 
seems to be better a choice.

s3.1: s/absent from published conference paper/absent from the published
conference paper/

Reference [MD2-his] (a draft in progress) is in the references but not
referred to. I don't see any places where it is needed.