Thanks for the prompt review :)
> - 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:
Nominally agree.
Those sections (2.*) are effectively a non-normative, so perhaps the "SHOULD"
ought to be "will typically".
3.1. (1) effectively (and normatively) states the "SHOULD" requirement wrt
DNS-ID (aka subjectAltName:dNSName).
> 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.
yes, this parenthetical sentence should simply be removed.
> - The three examples added to 2.3 are good, but they are in the reverse
> order of the sentence that introduces them.
doh.
> - 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.
hm. yeah, it should be spaced out somehow.
thx again,
=JeffH
_______________________________________________
certid mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
