Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (3358)
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 19 September 2012 18:11 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305C721F8694 for <smime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iZgxFlHCmqyI for <smime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E3021F867C for <smime@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [165.227.249.211] (sn81.proper.com [75.101.18.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8JIAn8b053145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:10:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <00c301cd967d$3e6c0f40$bb442dc0$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:10:49 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1A87E9C0-0C35-4B41-BD44-49482CE61961@vpnc.org>
References: <20120918032427.261FDB1E004@rfc-editor.org> <00c301cd967d$3e6c0f40$bb442dc0$@augustcellars.com>
To: Jim Schaad <jimsch@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1486)
Cc: dlitz@dlitz.net, smime@ietf.org, rhousley@rsasecurity.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Subject: Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (3358)
X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SMIME Working Group <smime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/smime>, <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smime>
List-Post: <mailto:smime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime>, <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:11:04 -0000
On Sep 19, 2012, at 8:41 AM, "Jim Schaad" <jimsch@augustcellars.com> wrote: > As it stands I would say that this errata needs to be rejected. > > > I accept the basic premise of the errata, that when you start step 3 the > value of t might not be well defined, however > > 1. the value of s is well defined and therefore does not need to be > redefined, and > 2. the value of t needs to be replaced with s in both locations that it > occurs. So, you have an alternate errata to propose? --Paul Hoffman
- [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (3358) RFC Errata System
- Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (… Jim Schaad
- Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (… Jim Schaad
- Re: [smime] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (… Dwayne Litzenberger