Re: [Cfrg] Acceptance call for draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs-02.txt

Good catches.

But since this is an acceptance call: what's your position w.r.t adoption by CFRG?

Johannes

Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote on 25.09.2014 17:51:
> On 09/25/2014 10:50 AM, David Jacobson wrote:
>> On 9/14/14, 2:05 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs/
> 
>> In the draft there are these definitions
>> 
>> If r is a non-negative real number, then we define the following functions:
>> 
>> ceil(r) : returns the smallest integer larger than r
>> 
>> floor(r) : returns the largest integer smaller than r
>> 
>> lg(r) : returns the base-2 logarithm of r
>> 
>> The definition of floor is incorrect. "smaller than" should be replaced with "equal to or smaller than", or
>> perhaps "not larger than".
> 
> 
> By the same token, the definition of ceil(r) is also incorrect.
> 
> in commonly-accepted terms:
> 
> ceil(4.0) = 4
> 
> but according to the definition stated, it should be 5.
> 
> it should be:
> 
> ceil(r) : returns the smallest integer greater than or equal to r
> 
> floor(r) : returns the largest integer less than or equal to r
> 
> --dkg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Cfrg mailing list Cfrg@irtf.org 
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> 