Ralph:
Russ - would you be willing to clear your DISCUSS and capture Joel's
new issues in a COMMENT?
- Ralph
On Jul 27, 2009, at 4:56 AM 7/27/09, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
This document is nearly ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
While my comments have been resolved, some minor issues
apparently crept in during the editing process.. These are small
enough that they can probably be dealt with in notes to the RFC
Editor if no other issues are found. However, they are sufficiently
ambiguous that they should not be left for rediscovery by the RFC
Editor.
Two individual sentences became truncated (Section 7, first
paragraph "was created." => "was." and section 8, third bullet "the
server."=>"the.")
Can you post an RFC Editor note this one? We have experience that
shows RFC Editor notes are read, but comments are almost always ignored.
Section 8 on the Sign exchange previously said that the information
was signed using the private key. Now it says that it is signed
using the public key. As I understand it, the signature is
generated with the private key to be verified with the public key.
I am not sure what the right words in the paragraph would be. (I
was happy with "private key" before since the signer used his own
private key.)
Again, I'd like to see an RFC Editor note for this one?
In the paragraph on the extension field parser length calculation,
with the text beginning:
"If greater than 22 an extension field is present. If the length
is .."
has two minor issues. I believe it would be clearer if it said
"If the remaining length is greater than 22 an extension field is
present. If the remaining length is ..."
I'm fine with a comment for this one.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
