On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:57:57PM +0000, Rob Stradling wrote: > The -bis authors received this comment a few days ago: > > "In page 9 of > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-31 in section > in section 2.1.3.1. we find > > The : operator and D[k1:k2] are defined the same as in Section 2.1.1. > > However, in section 2.1.1. the operator : is not found. There is no > definition of this operator." > > > The IESG has evaluated version -31, and we (the authors) now have a > bunch of DISCUSS comments to address before CT v2 will (finally!) become > an RFC. Although it's extremely late in the process to be making any > changes to the document (except for addressing the DISCUSS comments), > the WG Chairs and A-D (EKR) have given the go-ahead to address the > concern noted above, provided that I send this message to the list to > give folks a chance to object. > > I've prepared a PR: > https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/308
Interesting, I guess I mis-parsed what it was supposed to be, when balloting (in that I mostly only saw the D[k1:k2] notation and asked what "D[m]" was. So I guess I should take another look, but maybe I can hold off on that until there's text to review that resolves my DISCUSS points. -Ben _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
