Russ Housley wrote:
Peter:
I believe that this was discussed. I think we need to ship the
document. Delay is causing problems.
When, where, there was no response to my message? You hay have
discussed something at the
last IETF, but this is not in the minutes, and I never received an
reply to my message.
How can you claim that something has been discussed that I just
mentioned fo the first time as
a response to david?
===>
Anyway:
SCVP clients that support delegated path validation (DPV) as defined
in [RQMTS] require an authenticated response. Unless a protected
transport mechanism (such a TLS) is used, such clients MUST always
set this value to TRUE or omit the responseFlags item entirely,
which requires the server to return a protected response.
Shouldn't the the 'or' be changed into 'i.e.' or he rest of the sentence
removed.
You might consider to add the explanations above to the text, since there are
people out that do not have 20 years of experience with ASN.1 and
its encodings.
This is not the first occurence of such wording, and people have
created errors
in encodings. (e.g. with 3161).
You may try to understand my suggestion as an attempt to avoid
misinterpretations of
using the verb 'set' concerning of the value of an item and how it is encoded.
--
To verify the signature, see http://edelpki.edelweb.fr/ Cela vous
permet de charger le certificat de l'autorité; die Liste mit
zurückgerufenen Zertifikaten finden Sie da auch.