On 02/04/2013 15:28, Richard Barnes wrote:
Thanks for following up, and for the re-send. Just to be clear, I do
not mean these as blocking points.
On the former point, I might just suggest a minor edit to the
introduction:
OLD: This document specifies the options for determination and
Hi Stewart,
I think this resolves my issues.
Thanks,
--Richard
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 02/04/2013 15:28, Richard Barnes wrote:
Thanks for following up, and for the re-send. Just to be clear, I do not
mean these as blocking points.
On
Piyush,
(David's on the to: line because the text in question showed up as a
result of the gen-art review and it's now in -16)
I've been following this thread trying to figure out what if anything
needs to be changed to address your concerns in -17. (Note the thread
forked later, but I'm
Sean,
Thanks for your comments.
There are two points that I would like to cover separately. The first point
is a response to your comments below. The second point is a broader
objection to revoked for issued.
1) The text says - The revoked status is still optional in this context in
order to
On 4/8/13 5:59 PM, Piyush Jain wrote:
Sean,
Thanks for your comments.
There are two points that I would like to cover separately. The first point
is a response to your comments below. The second point is a broader
objection to revoked for issued.
1) The text says - The revoked status is still
