Hi, On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 3:39 AM Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Thank you for responding to our questions. We updated the document > accordingly (see files below). > > We have a followup question. We replaced the [X9.62] reference with [SEC1] > and also updated "[X9.62] Annex A” to "Section 2.3.3 of [SEC1]” as you > suggest. Are any updates needed for “X9.62” in the following sentence? > Section 3.2 of RFC 8292 does mention "X9.62 encoding”. > > Current: > Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 > encoding simplifies key comparisons and is more compact than > alternative formats. Good call. Let’s make the following change. Old: Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 encoding simplifies key comparisons and is more compact than alternative formats. New: Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 encoding (which is compatible with SEC1 encoding) simplifies key comparisons and is more compact than alternative formats. cheers Daniel -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
