Subject: [lamps] shepherd writeup: draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce/

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 14:20:59 -0400

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce/shepherdwriteup/

Please review and comment.

Russ

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 14:56:44 +0000

Is the answer to #11 a non-sequiture?  (However you spell it.)

It also specifies a recommendation for minimum, is that worth mentioning?

On 5/16/20, 2:21 PM, "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Russ

    _______________________________________________
    Spasm mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 13:02:32 -0400

Thanks for catching my failure to answer the proper question.  Now fixed:

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  IDnits reports:
  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6960, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC6960
     though, so this could be OK.
  The Abstract includes "This document updates the RFC 6960".
  This warning seems to be the result of "the" or a missing period.

Russ

> On May 18, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:
>