Re: <keygen> element

Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
> The key point isn't "somewhere else" but optional.  If <keygen> were 
> defined separately but normatively referenced in a way that was still 
> mandatory, the document would still not reflect reality.
> ...


> Nobody is suggesting that keygen should not be documented at all.
> The current draft indicates that keygen support is required.  That is 
> the part that is controversial.
> By Last Call, we need to have consensus on this issue.
> ...

Agreed as well. And on many more.

BR, Julian

Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 15:21:37 UTC