RE: SCVP 16 comments deadline

[Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> * - It would be nice to use the same field names.
> [TF] Fixed

ok.
> * 
> * - I suggest BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE for the inhibitPolMap together
> *   with some apppropriate tagging, it doesn't make much sense to
> *   me to code useless values.
> * 
> * Would it be possible to add some statement about the intended
> * meaning of the 6 possible combination:
> * 
> * 
> * inhibitPolMap = FALSE
> * 
> * inhibitPolicyMapping absent  1
> *                      FALSE   2
> *                      TRUE    3
> * 
> * inhibitPolMap = TRUE
> * 
> * inhibitPolicyMapping absent  4
> *                      FALSE   5
> *                      TRUE    6
> * 
> [TF] There is only one Boolean value for inhibitPolicyMapping. It can be
> defined in the policy, supplied in the request or defined in the servers
> default policy. Section 1.3 defines the precedence for each. Further
> 3.1.5.1 also requests the server to reject a request which summits a
> request which attempts to override the precedence.

Ok. 


> * 
> * Does it mean that when the client value takes preceedence over the
> * server value?
> * 
> * 1 = FALSE
> * 2 = FALSE
> * 3 = TRUE
> * 4 = TRUE
> * 5 = FALSE
> * 6 = TRUE
> * 
> * 
> * It had been said some time ago (as far as I remember) that these
> * inputs are not global ones but in principle for each of the
> * certs to be asked for. what was the conclusion why they stay global
> * for all certs?
> [TF] There is one validation policy per request therefore the same
> policy applies to all certs in the request.

Ok.