Re: Updated Section 4.

On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:53, Blair Dillaway wrote:
> Attached is my suggested update to Section 4 of the spec.  Joseph, I've
> put it in HTML as you requested.  This reflects my earlier proposal and
> feedback from Ed and Takeshi.  I've also done an editorial pass to clean
> up the wording in several places.

Thanks Blair, it's now clear it was under-specified before! <smile/>

I've had a go as well. I made a bunch of tweaks but I think most are for the 
best. (If I missed something, please push back.) Some of the substantive 
tweaks/questions I have are:

1. On the replace, do we need to force the encoding of EncryptedData during 
encryption? (Probably so....)
2. Also, I thought we agreed that the encrypt and replace was REQUIRED to 
implement but optional to use?