On 10/18/2017 5:21 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
You said in 4.1:
which the principle
way RFC5011 is currently being used (even though Section 6 of
RFC5011 suggests having a stand-by key available)
And then in T-1 you say:
Note that for simplicity we assume
> You said in 4.1:
>
> which the principle
> way RFC5011 is currently being used (even though Section 6 of
> RFC5011 suggests having a stand-by key available)
>
> And then in T-1 you say:
>
>Note that for simplicity we assume the signer is not pre-signing and
>
Top posting because of the "last call" note.
Still not ready.
You said in 4.1:
which the principle
way RFC5011 is currently being used (even though Section 6 of
RFC5011 suggests having a stand-by key available)
And then in T-1 you say:
Note that for simplicity we assume the sign
Mike,
Here's some responses to your comments from last time out. I'm
only including the ones that needed a response or had an actionable
item.
1.12 FIXED Section 4.1: This doesn't actually describe what's in 5011 -
~
Comments on -05 and your changes in line.
On 9/13/2017 1:01 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Mike, after your lengthy last review I went through and carefully made
sure each of your comments were considered. Most resulted in changes, a
few seemed to be just comments and there was nothing to do, and two
Mike, after your lengthy last review I went through and carefully made
sure each of your comments were considered. Most resulted in changes, a
few seemed to be just comments and there was nothing to do, and two we
didn't think were correct. Below is the summary of the changes in the
most recent
