Sriram,
regarding the implementer input, here are my thoughts:
To comment 1:
==
It is not uncommon to have a length field not include its own size. An example
is the length field of the capabilities which does specify the length (size) of
the
following capability (payload). In our cas
Dale,
Thanks for the review. Responses inline. And, assuming Steve agrees I’ll
submit a version that incorporates these and other changes before the IESG does
its eval.
spt
> On Dec 13, 2016, at 16:45, Dale Worley wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Dale Worley
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am
Russ Housley had suggested these changes (#1 and #2 below) as part of his
SecDir review.
But he also suggested to me to put it out on the mailing list so that
implementers in particular and anyone having an opinion can have a say.
Russ's comment:
Minor:
#1
In Section 3.2, the Signature Leng
