Thanks, Carsten, for the suggestion! It sounds much better to me that way. I will look at the comments from other people now and hopefully submit a new version later today.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 11:03 PM Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2020-10-31, at 21:56, Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would be happy if it the paragraph in question was rewritten to be > clearer, perhaps using the words in the exchange between me and Michael. > Really, simply replacing the passive voice in the sentence with active > pretty much forces you to be clear about who is doing what. > > Like: > > Certificates obtained from any of these methods MUST still be validated. > ➔ > Parties that intend to rely on the assertions made by a certificate > obtained from any of these methods still need to validate it. > > ? > > (Note that I changed the RFC 2119 MUST into a statement of fact, which is > orthogonal to the question of who the actor of the validation is.) > > Grüße, Carsten > >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
