Thank you for your clarification Eric. I concur with your approach.StewartOn 19 Mar 2025, at 21:22, Eric Rescorla wrote:Stewart,Thanks for your review.I have changed all but the last point, which I believe is correct as-is.The final issue asked if we should replace the reference to RFC 5077to RFC
Stewart,
Thanks for your review.
I have changed all but the last point, which I believe is correct as-is.
The final issue asked if we should replace the reference to RFC 5077
to RFC 8446, but this text is correct because the reference is to part
of the internal example structure in 5077 and 8446
