I like this rephrasing.
Hendrik
Von: David von Oheimb <David.von.Oheimb=40siemens....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Juli 2025 08:40
An: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; John Gray
<john.g...@entrust.com>
Cc: debcool...@gmail.com; Brockhaus, Hendrik (FT RPD CST SEA-DE)
<hendrik.brockh...@siemens.com>; Mike Ounsworth <mike.ounswo...@entrust.com>;
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; lamps-...@ietf.org; lamps-cha...@ietf.org;
hous...@vigilsec.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Betreff: Re: [EXTERNAL] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9810
<draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-18> for your review
Hi Alanna et al.,
I suggest streamlining part of the below mentioned paragraph on the
CertTemplate structure,
as follows.
The CertTemplate structure allows entities requesting a certificate
to specify the data fields that they wish to get included.
The publicKey field is typically required to provide. A
CertTemplate structure is identical to a TBSCertificate structure (see [RFC
5280])
but with all fields optional/situational.
Regards,
David
On 10.07.25 21:05, Alanna Paloma wrote:
Hi John,
Thank you for your reply.
I'm okay with the suggested updated text (I agree it is much clearer), however
there is a typo in it 🙂
It should be "when it is" instead of "when t is"
The CertTemplate structure allows an end entity or RA to specify as many
data fields as the structure wishes for the requested certificate. The
structure also allows an end entity or RA to include any other necessary data,
such as the publicKey field, when it is required for the certificate. A
CertTemplate structure is identical to a TBSCertificate structure (see [RFC
5280])
but with all fields optional/situational.
Thanks for spotting this! We have updated the text accordingly.
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
