Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: Section 2
Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr> Fri, 15 April 2005 09:19 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10650 for <pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3F8bZss087994; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:37:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3F8bZNA087993; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from edelweb.fr (edelweb.fr [212.234.46.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3F8bXvT087975 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:37:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr)
Received: from chandon.edelweb.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edelweb.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id j3F8bWn08105 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:37:32 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from chandon.edelweb.fr (chandon.edelweb.fr [193.51.14.162]) by edelweb.fr (nospam/2.0); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:37:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by chandon.edelweb.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id j3F8bWD03468 for ietf-pkix@imc.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:37:32 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:37:32 +0200
From: Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr>
Message-Id: <200504150837.j3F8bWD03468@chandon.edelweb.fr>
To: ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: Section 2
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
I realized that the following did not get to the list. > >Also, 3280 is under revision, if it happens that the corresponding text > >gets clarified in some way, one would have something considered > >unprecise elsewhere. > > I do not understand the harm that you believe is being caused. The same type as with the text in 3370 can be definetely avoided by not copying text which may be subject to clarifications. If clarifications (not changes!!) are made in rfc3280bis in order to address common misunderstandings or unprecise wording in the majority of non-native english speaking world, then these updates don't get into the other text.
- Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: Section 2 Peter Sylvester