Multiple Signatures in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
RFC 5752

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2008-05-22)
No email
send info
The document says:

  If both SignerInfo objects are
  not present, the relying party can easily determine that another
  SignerInfo has been removed.

My english may not be perfect, but doesn't "both X are not present" mean that there are no Xs at all in the message? Consider writing this as "If either SignerInfo object is missing, the relaying party ..."

(Russ Housley) Yes

(Tim Polk) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-22)
No email
send info
I found this document quite difficult to understand -- I'd suggest
doing some editorial work especially in Section 3 (the last bullet
before the example), Section 4.6, and Section 5.

Section 7: for future reference, it wouldn't hurt to say how the OIDs
have been assigned (and this information shouldn't be removed by the
RFC editor).

In OIDs, both spellings "pkcs9(9)" and "pkcs-9(9)" are used.

[PROFILE] should point to RFC5280, unless the reference to 3280
is intentional (if it is, a short explanation would be useful).

Section 3: the last two lines should probably have one more level 
of indentation?

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection