Hi Daniel and Murray* Daniel - Thanks for the reply; we updated the document accordingly. All of our questions have now been addressed. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.
*Murray - As AD, please review and approve the changes in the last two paragraphs in Section 3 and normative reference [X9.62] (which has been replaced). These changes are best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-auth48diff.html. — FILES (please refresh) — Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.html Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9749 Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 10, 2025, at 4:50 AM, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 3:39 AM Rebecca VanRheenen > <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >> Thank you for responding to our questions. We updated the document >> accordingly (see files below). >> >> We have a followup question. We replaced the [X9.62] reference with [SEC1] >> and also updated "[X9.62] Annex A” to "Section 2.3.3 of [SEC1]” as you >> suggest. Are any updates needed for “X9.62” in the following sentence? >> Section 3.2 of RFC 8292 does mention "X9.62 encoding”. >> >> Current: >> Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 >> encoding simplifies key comparisons and is more compact than >> alternative formats. > > > Good call. Let’s make the following change. > > Old: > Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 encoding > simplifies key comparisons and is more compact than alternative > formats. > > New: > Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 encoding > (which is compatible with SEC1 encoding) simplifies key comparisons > and is more compact than alternative formats. > > cheers > Daniel -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
