Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 149: Revalidation of certificates in cache

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:15:21 -0700

Miguel,

I've read through this issue, and accept the text, with the following
change:

MIGHT -> SHOULD
	The term MIGHT is not defined in RFC 2119. I believe that the intent
	was a SHOULD

NOT REQUIRED -> not required
	Again, NOT REQUIRED is not defined in RFC 2119, and I couldn't find
	an appropriate term from the RFC to use in this case. So I believe
	that just using not required in lower caps is fine.

	An alternative is to turn the sentence to be positive and state
	that implementations MAY do these checks. However, I think the
	language is fine.

I will therefore close this issue.

PatC

---

From: Miguel Ángel Monjas Llorente <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:38:46 +0200

> I've read through this issue, and accept the text, with the following

Changes are fine (I wrote so fast that I didn't check the terminology
to make it compliant with RFC 2119).

>         The term MIGHT is not defined in RFC 2119. I believe that the intent

My intention was actually closer to a MAY than to a SHOULD. But I just
wanted clarification, so that it's OK.

>         that implementations MAY do these checks. However, I think the

I prefer the second option (positive sentence)

Regards

  // M.A.