Sam Hartman | 17 Jan 2008 01:23
Picon
Favicon

Typo in core draft


+   bind the same public key.  These certificates need not to have been
+   pre-shared with their peers (e.g., because ephermal, self-signed).

The current text sounds like a requirement that certificates are not
shared with peers.  I think it's more like "These certificates do not
need to be "

Am I correct on this point?  If so, feel free to either submit a new
ID or give me an rfc editor note to apply in the tracker.

Either way I'll put this on the agenda for next week.
_______________________________________________

Nicolas Williams | 17 Jan 2008 11:16
Picon

Re: Typo in core draft

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:23:28PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> +   bind the same public key.  These certificates need not to have been
> +   pre-shared with their peers (e.g., because ephermal, self-signed).
> 
> 
> The current text sounds like a requirement that certificates are not
> shared with peers.  I think it's more like "These certificates do not
> need to be "

Yes, that's correct -- the word "do" is missing and should be inserted
before "need to be".

> Am I correct on this point?  If so, feel free to either submit a new
> ID or give me an rfc editor note to apply in the tracker.

The note is this:

    Add the word "do" before "need to" in the last sentence of the
    parapgraph that starts "Nodes wishing to be treated as BTNS
    nodes..." in section 2.

> Either way I'll put this on the agenda for next week.

Thanks.
_______________________________________________

Sam Hartman | 17 Jan 2008 16:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: Typo in core draft

I've inserted the following into the ballot:

Note to RFC Editor

Section 2:
old: bind the same public key.  These certificates need not to have been
new: bind the same public key.  These certificates do not need to be

_______________________________________________


Gmane