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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> 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