- From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 01:20:53 -0400
- To: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 05:21:32 UTC
Clarification, no follow up discussion. I declare consensus. I'll create an action for Anil to make the change. From: "Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com> To: "Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Cc: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> Date: 05/09/2008 09:11 AM Subject: Re: ACTION-417: investigate completeness of error handling wrt TLS extensions Anyone have a problem with this proposed change? > (*) In passing, I noticed that we say "When certificate status checks > are attempted, but fail due to network errors or related error > conditions,..." I think that'd be clearer as "When certificate status > checks are attempted, but where the check fails, (i.e. does not > produce an answer as to certificate status), due to network errors or > related error conditions,..." The current wording might be mis-read > to say that an actually revoked non-AA cert (check "failed") only leads > to a warning/caution message and not a danger message. >
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 05:21:32 UTC