Re: SCVP 16 comments deadline

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Trevor,

> Hi Denis,
> Below are responses to 1-16. Others will follow later.

I am pleased that you accepted comments 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Among this list, I have a further remark on comment 4.

> * 4. Page 13. Typo. Section 3.1.2 "checks"
> * The two following lines are in fact one line:
> * 
> * Change:
> * 
> *      - Build a validated certification path to a trust anchor; and
> * 
> *      - Do revocation status checks on the certification path.
> * 
> * into:
> * 
> *      - Build a validated certification path to a trust anchor and
> *        do revocation status checks on the certification path.
> * 
> [TF] Since this paragraph is listing the possible checks and building a
> path is a separate check to revocation checking, I think the current
> text is more accurate.

I agree that "building a path is a separate check to revocation checking", 
but revocation checking without building a validated path does not make sense.

The full text currently is:

    - Build a certification path to a trust anchor;

    - Build a validated certification path to a trust anchor; and

    - Do revocation status checks on the certification path.

The full text should be:

    - Build a certification path to a trust anchor;

    - Build a validated certification path to a trust anchor; and
      do revocation status checks on the certification path.

Denis