On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I support the goal of this document, i.e. to publish the text in the
> IANA repository as an RFC.
>
> There are differences between the text in the current IANA repository
> and the document. These differences are not spelled out in the document
> for the 'tls-server-end-point' channel binding. The document says:
>
> Note that the only material changes from the original registration
> should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
> specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
> should be consulted for applicability advice.
>
> That is not correct, compare the content registered with IANA
This is true, though the difference isn't likely to have any real
impact, ever. That may be why I neglected to update the above note.
> I suggest that the first paragraph quoted above from section 4 is
> modified like this:
>
> OLD:
> Note that the only material changes from the original registration
> should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
> specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
> should be consulted for applicability advice.
>
> NEW:
> Note that the only material changes from the original registration
> should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
> specfication, and a clarification to the description related to
> certificate's that do not use hash functions or use multiple hash
^
remove apostrophe.
> functions. We also added a note indicating that this specification
> contains applicability advice, and we moved security considerations
> notes to the security considerations section of this document.
>
> The last sentence is copied from section 3 for consistency.
>
> Also missing is in section 3 and section 5 is a note that references
> were added to the text. I suggest:
>
> OLD:
> ...security considerations section of this document. All other
> fields of the registration are copied here for the convenience of
> readers.
>
> NEW:
> ...security considerations section of this document. References were
> added to the description. All other fields of the registration are
> copied here for the convenience of readers.
I'm happy with your proposed changes.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
