Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Line numbers from nits
>> 13 This document describes a serialiation of the RFC8366
voucher format
>> 14 to a JSON format is then signed using the JSON Object
Signing and
>> 15 Encryption mechanism described in RFC7515.
> Welcome to the club of people too lazy to use spell checkers.
> (1) suggested replacement text to provide better context setting:
Accepted.
> (2) Up to the point where an AD or other higher power might have
objections,
> i really would like to see this document marked as an Update to RFC8366 so
> that we have a breadcrump trail from RFC8366 to this document (personally
> i am never quite sure what the strict requirements are for such a
> marking).
Sure, that works for me.
I agree with Brian, that it is hard to say what form of Updates we care
about.
It is not Amends.
It is not quite Extends.
It is mostly in the See Also.
ps: RFC editor will prefer "artifact" over "artefact" :-)
https://github.com/mcr/anima-jose-voucher/commit/66d39393d1d3ccbcb0e74674e10ea6599288eb28
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
