Re: [certid] version -11

[=JeffH <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the prompt review :)

 > - The sentence that was added to 2.3 beginning with "However..." needs 
clarification.
 > Current:
 >    However, the Common Name might contain a human-readable string for
 >    the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully-
 >    qualified DNS domain name:
 >
 > Proposed:
 >    However, the Common Name might contain a human-readable string for
 >    the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully-
 >    qualified DNS domain name, and a certificate with such a Common Name
 >    SHOULD have a subjectAltName that contains the fully-qualified domain
 >    name:

Nominally agree.

Those sections (2.*) are effectively a non-normative, so perhaps the "SHOULD" 
ought to be "will typically".

3.1. (1) effectively (and normatively) states the "SHOULD" requirement wrt 
DNS-ID (aka subjectAltName:dNSName).


 > A few editorial-only comments that might or might not elicit a -12:
 >
 > - A parenthetical sentence was added to the beginning of 1.5 that is,
 > fortunately, not true. The "$" thing in the security terms RFC is
 > distracting, and would make this document harder to read. Please just remove
 > the parenthetical sentence.

yes, this parenthetical sentence should simply be removed.


 > - The three examples added to 2.3 are good, but they are in the reverse
 > order of the sentence that introduces them.

doh.


 > - Paragraph and section breaks are your friend. The "Implementation Note" at
 > the end of 2.3 is more properly "Many Implementation Notes" and probably
 > deserves its own subsection.

hm. yeah, it should be spaced out somehow.


thx again,

=JeffH