Skip to main content

Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Robert Sparks
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Harald Alvestrand
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2009-07-09
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-21
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2009-05-06
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I would prefer if Errata is folded into the document, references are updated and a new RFC is created.

I am fine with …
[Ballot comment]
I would prefer if Errata is folded into the document, references are updated and a new RFC is created.

I am fine with not opening the document to any other kind of change.
2009-05-05
04 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Robert Sparks
2009-04-23
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
2009-04-23
04 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
(Upgraded from my earlier comment as requested by Tim.)

Agree with Alexey about rolling in the erratas. Also, RFC4853 should be rolled in …
[Ballot discuss]
(Upgraded from my earlier comment as requested by Tim.)

Agree with Alexey about rolling in the erratas. Also, RFC4853 should be rolled in and obsoleted.
2009-04-23
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Lars Eggert
2009-04-23
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss Discuss. I don't understand the process around the maturity level of the normative references.
2009-04-23
04 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
Discuss-Discuss:

I would like to see this advance. I expected to find some discussion (in LC) of what I think are going to …
[Ballot discuss]
Discuss-Discuss:

I would like to see this advance. I expected to find some discussion (in LC) of what I think are going to be downrefs this goes forward and am not finding it. Am I looking in the wrong places?
2009-04-23
04 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-04-23
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-04-23
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-04-23
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-04-23
04 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Why on earth does the "Position list for N.N. for 2009-04-23 telechat " page in the tracker for this document point to some …
[Ballot comment]
Why on earth does the "Position list for N.N. for 2009-04-23 telechat " page in the tracker for this document point to some unrelated draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/idtracker.cgi#draft-schoenw-snmp-tc-ext) as opposed to the RFC?
2009-04-22
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-04-22
04 Cullen Jennings
[Ballot discuss]
Real discuss - Seems like we need to clarify the license rules that apply to this. This could be resolved with note to …
[Ballot discuss]
Real discuss - Seems like we need to clarify the license rules that apply to this. This could be resolved with note to RFC Editor that says this needs the note the it contains text from rules prior to Nov 2008.


This is a discuss Discuss. I imagine I am missing something here but this seems like it brings in all 3280. Doesn't' this just bring 3280 to Draft as well? (and 3281 for that matter).
2009-04-22
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-22
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-04-22
04 Pasi Eronen [Ballot comment]
I agree with Lars/Alexey that rolling in the erratas and RFC 4853
would improve the document.
2009-04-22
04 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-04-21
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-04-20
04 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-04-20
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Agree with Alexey about rolling in the erratas. Also, RFC4853 should be rolled in and obsoleted.
2009-04-20
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-04-20
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Agree with Alexey. Also, RFC4853 should be rolled in and obsoleted.
2009-04-17
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-04-15
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-04-15
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk
2009-04-15
04 Tim Polk Ballot has been issued by Tim Polk
2009-04-14
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov
2009-04-14
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
I would prefer if Errata is folded into the document and a new RFC is created.
2009-04-14
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot discuss]
2009-04-12
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
(I think this is a "discuss-discuss", but nobody has explained to me exactly what "discuss-discuss" is. But anyway, I intend to clear this …
[Ballot discuss]
(I think this is a "discuss-discuss", but nobody has explained to me exactly what "discuss-discuss" is. But anyway, I intend to clear this shortly.)

How is existing Errata for RFC 3852 going to be handled? Will Errata be converted to RFC Editor notes?
2009-04-12
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-04-12
04 Alexey Melnikov Created "Approve" ballot
2004-06-17
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-06-16
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-06-16
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-06-16
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-05-30
04 Steven Bellovin State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Steve Bellovin
2004-05-30
04 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART

The new section 1.3 describing version numbers resolves my DISCUSS. Thanks!
2004-05-30
04 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] Position for Harald Alvestrand has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Harald Alvestrand
2004-05-28
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2004-05-28
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-04.txt
2004-05-28
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-05-27
2004-05-27
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-05-27
04 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot discuss]
This document has fairly strict rules about version number handling, but does not explain the general principles on which these rules are based, …
[Ballot discuss]
This document has fairly strict rules about version number handling, but does not explain the general principles on which these rules are based, which makes it hard to know how to handle version number mismatch in general.
More words would be good.
2004-05-27
04 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-05-27
04 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2004-05-27
04 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2004-05-27
04 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-05-27
04 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-05-27
04 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2004-05-26
04 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2004-05-26
04 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-05-26
04 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-05-25
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie
2004-05-25
04 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
Nits:

Odd stitching in 5.1:

certificates is a collection of certificates.  It is intended that
      the set of certificates be …
[Ballot comment]
Nits:

Odd stitching in 5.1:

certificates is a collection of certificates.  It is intended that
      the set of certificates be sufficient to contain certification
      paths from a recognized "root" or "top-level certification
      authority" to all of the

      signers in the signerInfos field.


In 6.2.2 I think the following text is a bit unclear:

      Implementations MUST support recipient processing
      of a KeyAgreeRecipientInfo SEQUENCE that includes a ukm field.
      Implementations that do not support key agreement algorithms that
      make use of UKMs MUST gracefully handle the presence of UKMs.

Possibly a term other than "processing" would help; would "MUST accept
a KeyAgreeRecipientInfo SEQUENCE...." before leading into the following
make sense?

Following its predecessors, this doc describes generalizedTime as

  UTCTime values MUST be expressed in Greenwich Mean Time (Zulu) and
  MUST include seconds (i.e., times are YYMMDDHHMMSSZ), even where the

  number of seconds is zero.  Midnight (GMT) MUST be represented as
  "YYMMDD000000Z".  Century information is implicit, and the century
  MUST be determined as follows:

Is it time to update this to actually say "UTCTime values MUST be expressed
with reference to Coordinated Universal Time (formerly known as Greenwich
Mean Time or  Zulu clock time) and must..."?  Note also spurious space in the
doc at 11.3.
2004-05-25
04 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
Nits:

Odd stitching in 5.1:

certificates is a collection of certificates.  It is intended that
      the set of certificates be …
[Ballot comment]
Nits:

Odd stitching in 5.1:

certificates is a collection of certificates.  It is intended that
      the set of certificates be sufficient to contain certification
      paths from a recognized "root" or "top-level certification
      authority" to all of the

      signers in the signerInfos field.


In 6.2.2 I think the following text is a bit unclear:

      Implementations MUST support recipient processing
      of a KeyAgreeRecipientInfo SEQUENCE that includes a ukm field.
      Implementations that do not support key agreement algorithms that
      make use of UKMs MUST gracefully handle the presence of UKMs.

Possibly a term other than "processing" would help; would "MUST accept
a KeyAgreeRecipientInfo SEQUENCE...." before leading into the following
make sense?
2004-05-25
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-05-24
04 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-05-21
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-05-20
04 Steven Bellovin State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Steve Bellovin
2004-05-20
04 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Steven Bellovin
2004-05-20
04 Steven Bellovin Ballot has been issued by Steve Bellovin
2004-05-20
04 Steven Bellovin Created "Approve" ballot
2004-05-11
04 Steven Bellovin Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-05-27 by Steve Bellovin
2004-05-10
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2004-04-26
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-04-26
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-04-26
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-04-26
04 (System) Last call text was added
2004-04-26
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-04-26
04 Amy Vezza Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2004-04-26
04 Steven Bellovin State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Steve Bellovin
2004-04-21
04 Steven Bellovin Draft Added by Steve Bellovin
2004-04-20
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-03.txt
2004-04-01
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-02.txt
2004-03-22
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-01.txt
2004-03-16
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-00.txt