Re: [certid] version -11

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

I have read the diff and believe that the new draft is ready for publication (or at least for sending to the IESG). One technical issue was introduced however:

- 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:

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.

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

- 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.

- Spell check is your friend. (Hint: "automatially".)


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium