BTW, the run-on fix is at https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/340
On 7/29/21, 4:58 PM, "Salz, Rich" <[email protected]> wrote: ==[ Erik's comments https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/*erik-kline__;Kg!!GjvTz_vk!BPeMvNz08bvXdqCpRZl8Rlm6AkVc40QWJ_ATPzz1dumUNH7NZykK0JYf-T8j$ [Roman] The first two seem like trivial editorial fixes. Sorry I lost the original mail so responding here and explicitly CC'ing Erik. > [S1.3] [nit] > * Consider expanding SCT and STH on first use. We fixed this in draft 40, thanks. It was more of a nit-picking nuisance than expected :) > [S4.2.1] [nit] > * The first sentence reads like a bit of a run-on sentence to me. Perhaps: Fixed, thanks! > [S10.1.2] [comment] > * Not to start a bikeshed, but "trans" strikes me a bit generic for direct registration under ietf:params (I'd think it meant "transport" before I thought of "transparency", for example :-). Yeah, we're not going to re-open that :) _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans__;!!GjvTz_vk!BPeMvNz08bvXdqCpRZl8Rlm6AkVc40QWJ_ATPzz1dumUNH7NZykK0APeSqiq$ _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
