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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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.

Barry