> On Apr 15, 2020, at 12:58 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Derrell, > > Thank You for the review! Please see inline. > >> pp. 3, 1., nit >> >> "...enables the single-sign-on features, which allows the user to..." >> >> "...enables single sign-on, which allows the user to..." > > We can fix as suggested. > > --- > >> pp. 5, last sentence >> >> "previously" means "from the out-of-scope mechanism", just say that. > > I think that sounds a little "clumsy" to repeat it. Would it work if we said "obtained in the step above", or something like that? “the step above” works too. > --- > >> pp. 7, 2.1.1 >> >> "(or with invalid credentials)" >> >> Why continue when a UAC presents invalid credentials? [See below.] >> >> >> pp. 8, 2.1.3 >> >> 2.1.1 says if you get invalid credentials to go REGISTER, and here in >> REGISTER, it says if you get invalid credentials, go to 2.1.1. This >> seems recursive though I'm assuming this ultimately terminates when all >> the schemes are exhausted without success. > > Section 2.1.1 defines generic procedures, while section 2.1.3 defines the procedures specific for the REGISTER request. > > Regards, > > Christer Okay. Derrell
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
