Re: ACTION-417: investigate completeness of error handling wrt TLS extensions

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.
>