Re: Recommended 5.3 wording change

[sen_ml@xxxxxxxxxxx]

From: hal@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Recommended 5.3 wording change
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:23:16 -0700
Message-ID: <200007210523.WAA02739@xxxxxxxxxx>

...

> Furthermore the corresponding language in 5.2.3, which describes what is
> hashed for V4 signature packets, is missing the description of the five
> byte postscript, which is wrong.
>
> I think it would be best in each case simply to refer to section 5.2.4,
> Computing Signatures, which gives a more complete description of exactly
> what is hashed.  You might want to look there and see if the language
> is unclear.

i think these are good points.  section 5.2.4 reads much more clearly
to me than the earlier sections.  i think adding appropriate
references to section 5.2.4 in relevant locations would be a good
improvement.