Thanks for the response Tiru. Trimming down to the one open issue below;
everything else looks perfect:
On 8 Aug 2016, at 23:50, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:
3.1.2 - Change "MUST" to "will" both times in the second paragraph.
I presume you're OK with those changes?
The last sentence of the section I don't understand; it doesn't seem
to have any interoperability implications, and I don't see why the
client can't examine the ticket in any way it wants. Either justify
the sentence or delete it.
[TR] Even if the client examines the ticket there is no guarantee that
it will be able decode its fields. This line is added to suggest that
there is no need for the client to examine the ticket.
Well, "no need" is very different than "MUST NOT". If you really want to
keep the sentence (and I still think you could just delete it), I would
suggest simply changing it to something like: "Note: There is no
guarantee that the fields in the ticket are going to be decodable to a
client, and therefore attempts by a client to examine the ticket are
unlikely to be useful."
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
