Thanks! I am now very comfortable with your text on this. Geoff
> On 29 Jun 2016, at 3:39 AM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > > Geoff, > > Thanks for reviewing the text. > > I modified the text to change "current VRS-IP" to be "... the value of the > VRS-IP computed for certificate x-1" as per your suggestion. I also made this > change for the corresponding VRS-AS text. > > I don't think we need to add a note about validation being performed "top > down" since bullet B already says: "certificate '1' is a trust anchor" > > Steve >> FWIW, I like this formulation Steve. >> >> Possibly when you refer to "the current value of the VRS-IP” you may want to >> explicitly refer to the VRS-IP of certificate x-1 rather than “current”. >> >> I also wonder if it is worth noting that the enumerated steps outlined here >> are intended to be performed “top down” - i.e. from a trust anchor to the >> certificate to be validated. >> >> regards, >> >> Geoff >> _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
