IETF conflict review for draft-cailleux-secure-headers
conflict-review-cailleux-secure-headers-00
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-08-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-cailleux-secure-headers@tools.ietf.org, iana@iana.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-cailleux-secure-headers@tools.ietf.org, iana@iana.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-cailleux-secure-headers-06 The IESG has completed a review of draft-cailleux-secure-headers-06 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Securing Header Fields with S/MIME' as an Experimental RFC. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log. The IESG review is documented at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-cailleux-secure-headers/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cailleux-secure-headers/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2014-08-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2014-08-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-08-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2014-08-21
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2014-08-21
|
00 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-08-21
|
00 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-08-21
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry. I suspect we'd not standardise exactly this but no harm that someone plays with it. |
2014-08-21
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-08-20
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-08-20
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-08-20
|
00 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-08-20
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-08-20
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-08-20
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-08-19
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-08-19
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-08-18
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-08-15
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I think this doesn't add enough that's useful beyond what S/MIME already does, with "The sending client MAY wrap a full MIME [ … [Ballot comment] I think this doesn't add enough that's useful beyond what S/MIME already does, with "The sending client MAY wrap a full MIME [RFC 2045] message in a message/rfc822 wrapper in order to apply S/MIME security services to header fields," and I don't think the document makes a compelling case. I don't think this proposal is likely to see much implementation. All that said, I don't think there's any harm, and some people might find it useful. No conflict with IETF work that I can see, so let's give it a shot. |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | New version available: conflict-review-cailleux-secure-headers-00.txt |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | Conflict Review State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Barry Leiba | Shepherding AD changed to Barry Leiba |
2014-08-12
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-08-21 |
2014-08-11
|
00 | Nevil Brownlee | IETF conflict review requested |