Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:43:14 -0400 (EDT):
| [fixed embarassing typo in the subject line] Don't worry. It's not the first time that's happened. :) | > | 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). Addressed in b3c2525. | > | 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. 7c9801f. _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
