Re: [lamps] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-09: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Perfect; thanks.

b

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the reply, Russ.  Just on the one thing that remains open;
> > on the rest, all is good:
> >
> >>> — Section 2.2 —
> >>>
> >>>  The second parameter is
> >>>  the number of bytes output by the hash function, m, which is the
> >>>  amount of data associated with each node in the tree.
> >>>
> >>> It’s a small thing, but I think the “m” is misplaced where it is, and suggest
> >>> “…the number of bytes, m, output by the hash function….”
> >>
> >> How about:
> >>
> >>   The second parameter is
> >>   the number of bytes output by the hash function, m, and it is the
> >>   amount of data associated with each node in the tree.
> >
> > It retains the fault that "m" is not the hash function, and "by the
> > hash function, m," makes it look like it is.  I still think you're
> > better off moving "m" to one of these positions:
> >
> > "The second parameter, m, is the number of bytes output by the hash function"
> > "The second parameter is the number of bytes, m, output by the hash function"
> >
> > But I'll grant that I'm being picky about the wording, and that it's
> > not likely to be confusing in practice.  So if you think it's best
> > with the "m" where you have it, we're done here, and thanks for
> > considering my suggestions and accepting most of them.
>
> I guess I missed your point on the first reading.
>
> How about:
>
>    The second parameter, m,
>    is the number of bytes output by the hash function, and it is the
>    amount of data associated with each node in the tree.
>
> Russ
>