Hello WG, I have now done my review of the architecture document. Thanks for producing a very good document.
I haven’t identified very critical issues, however, I would like see the following issues addressed or discussed before we move the document forward - -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1081 https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1082 -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1083 -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1084 -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1085 -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1086 -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1087 -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1088 -https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1080 - https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1090 I have some minor comments/suggestions that i have put into a single issue which can be addressed as a part of IETF Last Call - https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1091 //Zahed
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
