Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote: > The proposed text still needs some work here; I would urge the WG not > to accept this in current form. That said, using normative language in > this specific part certainly helps to clarify the requirements for > implementers.
So, I agree, but "Hold for document update" means that we can, effectively update it when we update the document. Yes, the rfc-editor can/will perform XML substitution for the errata process, and so we should care a bit about the text proposed, but my take is that it's better than what we had, and we can tweak this at our leisure. But... feel free to wordsmith! > idevid-issuer: The Issuer value from the pledge IDevID certificate > SHOULD BE included to ensure unique interpretation of the serial- > number. > In the case of a nonceless (offline) voucher-request, an > appropriate value MUST be configured from the same out-of-band > source as the serial-number. Yes, it SHOULD be, "SHOULD be" _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima