Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> The proposed text still needs some work here; I would urge the WG not
> to accept this in current form. That said, using normative language in
> this specific part certainly helps to clarify the requirements for
> implementers.
So, I agree, but "Hold for document update" means that we can, effectively
update it when we update the document.
Yes, the rfc-editor can/will perform XML substitution for the errata process,
and so we should care a bit about the text proposed, but my take is that it's
better than what we had, and we can tweak this at our leisure.
But... feel free to wordsmith!
> idevid-issuer: The Issuer value from the pledge IDevID certificate
> SHOULD BE included to ensure unique interpretation of the serial-
> number.
> In the case of a nonceless (offline) voucher-request, an
> appropriate value MUST be configured from the same out-of-band
> source as the serial-number.
Yes, it SHOULD be, "SHOULD be"
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
