Ian Brown <I(_dot_)Brown(_at_)cs(_dot_)ucl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> writes:
Without stating anything, the critical bit would wreck the signatures on
all keys using this feature. Something more than "reserved for future
use" needs to be said. I'd prefer, " The critical bit may be safely
ignored for this field"..
Sounds good to me.
Same here. In fact I think Ryan Anderson's suggest an improvement
over the previous consensus of "reserve for future use", so now we
have: "reserve for future use; criticality bit does not apply for this
field".
So where are we at here, we have 3 or 4 list members saying that this
is their preferred semantics for this section, plus many saying the
same thing in the discussion last year. Any naysayers?
Otherwise would the active editor of said document be interested to
amend the document appropriately and post the suggested ammendment for
approval.
Would it help if some one wrote a few sentences of specific wording to
put in there?
Thanks,
Adam