Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3394 (3358)
Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.smime |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sep 19, 2012, at 8:41 AM, "Jim Schaad" <[email protected]> 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 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime