I have read the diff and believe that the new draft is ready for publication (or at least for sending to the IESG). One technical issue was introduced however:
- The sentence that was added to 2.3 beginning with "However..." needs clarification. Current: However, the Common Name might contain a human-readable string for the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully- qualified DNS domain name: Proposed: However, the Common Name might contain a human-readable string for the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully- qualified DNS domain name, and a certificate with such a Common Name SHOULD have a subjectAltName that contains the fully-qualified domain name: A few editorial-only comments that might or might not elicit a -12: - A parenthetical sentence was added to the beginning of 1.5 that is, fortunately, not true. The "$" thing in the security terms RFC is distracting, and would make this document harder to read. Please just remove the parenthetical sentence. - The three examples added to 2.3 are good, but they are in the reverse order of the sentence that introduces them. - Paragraph and section breaks are your friend. The "Implementation Note" at the end of 2.3 is more properly "Many Implementation Notes" and probably deserves its own subsection. - Spell check is your friend. (Hint: "automatially".) --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
