Subject: Why is authorization data in an appendix

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hartman)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:04:48 -0400 (EDT)

Why is this in an appendix rather than in the main body of the
document?

---

From: Clifford Neuman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:58:29 -0700 (PDT)

The definition of authorization data was in the body, but specific
element definitions in an appendix.  Part of the reason was that there
were many elements that weren't needed in call cases.  With the
reduction of the inclusion to those that must be understood, we could
consider pulling it into the body, though I am not sure that we should
move it.  It is somthing to consider.

Cliff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:24:01 -0400

>>>>> "Clifford" == Clifford Neuman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Clifford> The definition of authorization data was in the body,
    Clifford> but specific element definitions in an appendix.  Part
    Clifford> of the reason was that there were many elements that
    Clifford> weren't needed in call cases.  With the reduction of the
    Clifford> inclusion to those that must be understood, we could
    Clifford> consider pulling it into the body, though I am not sure
    Clifford> that we should move it.  It is somthing to consider.

OK.  The main reason I asked is that Tom saw an asymmetry between
padata (defined in section 5) and the AD elements.  I was not able to
come up with a good explanation.

I don't personally care that much either way.