RE: Security AD Review of draft-ietf-pkix-ipki3cmp-05.txt

["Jeffrey I. Schiller" <[e-mail]>]

<x-rich>>>>>

<excerpt>At 03:17 PM 11/10/97 -0500, Carlisle Adams wrote:

>Thoughts?


Having a separate glossary is probably a good idea. It shouldn't take too 

long (I hope) to put one together. I'll ask the IESG (we are at a two day 

face-to-face meeting today and tomorrow) if we can move forward without a 

glossary at this point and plan to add one before the document goes to
Draft 

Standard.


                           -Jeff


</excerpt><<<<<<<<


We discussed this at the IESG Retreat today (within the hour). The
consensus 

is that a separate glossary document would be a great ideal *and* we
don't 

need to hold up the Part III document to wait for it. The sense was that
as 

long as the terms defined were understood by "those practiced in the art" 

then we don't have to wait for the glossary document.


                             -Jeff
</x-rich>