[GNUnet-SVN] [taler-exchange] branch master updated: typo

[gnunet]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

dold pushed a commit to branch master
in repository exchange.

The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
     new 14cf795  typo
14cf795 is described below

commit 14cf795955a58bb83cda7318bb54ffe6d8060852
Author: Florian Dold <address@hidden>
AuthorDate: Wed May 17 15:23:26 2017 +0200

    typo
---
 doc/paper/taler.tex        |  2 +-
 doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt | 15 ++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/paper/taler.tex b/doc/paper/taler.tex
index d53fe2f..5e98119 100644
--- a/doc/paper/taler.tex
+++ b/doc/paper/taler.tex
@@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ key reasons for DigiCash's failure include:
  \item % In addition to the risk of legal disputes wh fraudulent
    % merchants and customers,
    Chaum's published design does not clearly
-   limit the financial damage a exchange might suffer from the
+   limit the financial damage an exchange might suffer from the
    disclosure of its private online signing key.
  \item Chaum did not support fractional payments or refunds without
    weakening customer anonymity.
diff --git a/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt b/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt
index 6dfee73..95fd946 100644
--- a/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt
+++ b/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt
@@ -54,11 +54,16 @@ anonymous payment systems. Thus, the efficiency of Taler is 
unclear.
 Additional Comment: The description of the protocols of Taler omits many
 details. In particular, the authors should describe in detail how the refunds
 are executed using the refresh protocol, as the authors claim that the refresh
-protocol allows refunds as a contribution. Furthermore, the authors should
-interpret the notation FDHK, and cite the reference for EdDSA. The title of
-Subsection 3.1 may be misleading, as this subsection does not describe the
-security model. The authors should rename the title. The “We have computed Li…”
-in Subsection 4.3 should be L(i).
+protocol allows refunds as a contribution.
+
+> We added more material on refunds
+
+Furthermore, the authors should interpret the notation FDHK, and cite the
+reference for EdDSA. The title of Subsection 3.1 may be misleading, as this
+subsection does not describe the security model. The authors should rename the
+title. The “We have computed Li…” in Subsection 4.3 should be L(i).
+
+> FIXME: can/should we address this?
 
 
 ----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------

-- 
To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
address@hidden