[fixed embarassing typo in the subject line] On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Linus Nordberg wrote:
> Ben, > > Thanks for the review. Addressing some issues below and others in a > separate reply to Tom's comments. > > > Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote > Sun, 22 Mar 2015 22:51:38 -0400 (EDT): > > | I seem to be missing a normative reference for various terminology and > | conventions (e.g., "the timestamp, as a number", which I assume is > | milliseconds since the epoch, excluding leap seconds, in decimal, to match > | the other specs). > > They are all from RFC6962. What'd be the right way of refer to it? > Mentioning 6962 in each and every entry, like > > + sct_version - Version as defined in [RFC6962] Section 3.2, > as a number. > > + log_id - LogID as defined in [RFC6962] Section 3.2, as a > base64 encoded string. > > or rather put some text at the top of the section (3.1.3. in this case)? I would actually consider making a section 1.1 "Terminology", with something like "this document relies on terminology and data structures defined in RFC 6962, including but not limited to the SCT Version, LogID, SCT timestamp, CTExtensions, ...". Of the two you list, I would prefer the former (mentioning 6962 in each line). > | The formatting in 4.1.3 seems funky; it looks like a list has been > | condensed into running text (including bullet symbols) > > Would capitalizing the first word of each point be sufficient or should > we get rid of the list altogether? This list is okay, but I would just make it a semicolon-separated list. -Ben _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
