On 11/26/10 10:46 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > 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.
Operator error, already removed. > - The three examples added to 2.3 are good, but they are in the > reverse order of the sentence that introduces them. Too much fiddling right before submission. Corrected in the running text. > - 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. Good point, will place that into a new subsection and split up the long paragraph into smaller chunks. > - Spell check is your friend. (Hint: "automatially".) My wetware has an onboard spell-checker, but missed that one... ;-) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
