Joel M. Halpern wrote:
On the first resolution, that looks sufficient. You reference both the
need for ASN.1, and the need for clearence.
On the second issue, I may have been unclear.
It is not obvious to me that all uses of this attribute must inherently
be situations in which there is only
Your reasoning on multiple sponsors (or the lack thereof) makes sense.
Would it be sensible and practical to add a clause in the text where it
says that only one is allowed, along the lines of , as distinct sponsor
should be represented in distinct certificates (or other wording to
that
On the first resolution, that looks sufficient. You reference both the
need for ASN.1, and the need for clearence.
On the second issue, I may have been unclear.
It is not obvious to me that all uses of this attribute must inherently
be situations in which there is only one sponsor.Thus, the
Joel,
Thanks for your timely review.
spt
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
