Rohan and RFC Editor:
1) <!--[rfced] We note a small discrepancy between the ASN.1 snippet in
>> Section 3 and the ASN.1 in Appendix A: the { character at the end
>> of the "id-kp" line in Section 3 is on the following line in the
>> Appendix. Please review and let us know if/how to make these
>> consistent. Might it be possible to simply point the reader to
>> Appendix A instead of repeating the code?
>>
>> Original (Section 3):
>> id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
>> iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
>> security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }
>>
>> id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 }
>>
>> Original (Appendix A):
>> id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
>> { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
>> security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }
>>
>>
>> id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 }
>>
>> -->
> I followed the formatting conventions of other similar registrations,
> including RFC9509, which is the most recent registration of an Extended Key
> Purpose. It also places the opening curly brace in a different location in
> the textual definition than it does in the MIB. I would tend to keep the
> status quo unless there is consensus otherwise from the chairs and ADs.
Both formats will work. ASN.1 compilers will be fine with either one.
Russ
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
