RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2510bis-03.txt (and rfc2511bis- 01.txt)

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx>]

At 2:31 PM -0500 3/2/01, Carlisle Adams wrote:
> If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to run the modules 
> through a syntax checker and give me a list of the necessary 
> changes, I'd be happy to incorporate them.  My sense, however, from 
> what you've listed below, is that the changes required will be 
> sufficiently minor that they can all be taken care of during the 
> last "48 HOURS NOTICE" editing cleanup window from the RFC Editor. 
> Therefore, I see no reason to hold up progression of either of these 
> documents.

Any change to any code in a document must be made before the document 
is sent to the RFC Editor. If any code is discovered to need changing 
after that time, the RFC Editor should kick it back to the IESG, who 
should ask the authors to fix it.

It is Very Bad to change anything other than minor editorial 
statements during the author review, or to even believe that all the 
authors will be around for the review.

Carlisle: I take it from your comments that you don't think that any 
of Phil's suggestions need to be implemented because no one tripped 
over them. Is that correct? If so, it's fine that we don't make the 
changes, but that is *quite* different than changing them after 
everyone has used the current code for testing.

Phil: do you have evidence that any ASN.1 compiler other than the one 
you listed has problems with the code as it stands now?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium