On Sep 19, 2012, at 8:41 AM, "Jim Schaad" <jimsch(_at_)augustcellars(_dot_)com>
wrote:
As it stands I would say that this errata needs to be rejected.
I accept the basic premise of the errata, that when you start step 3 the
value of t might not be well defined, however
1. the value of s is well defined and therefore does not need to be
redefined, and
2. the value of t needs to be replaced with s in both locations that it
occurs.
So, you have an alternate errata to propose?
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime