[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Second Last Call: rfc3852 (Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) to Draft Standard
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the smime WG (smime) to consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' RFC 3852 as a Draft Standard
This appeared on the agenda for last week's telechat, and confused
me pretty well. Glad to see I'm not alone! ;^)
>> No technical issues were raised during the first Last Call. However,
>> the Last Call failed to highlight two normative references to standards
>> track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 3280 and 3281.
As I understand it, the intent was to advance the status of RFC 3852
with no text changes whatsoever. I tend to support such actions, since
otherwise it seems "just too hard" to advance Proposed Standard documents
to Draft Standard.
> Speaking as a member of the IETF community I find the question
> confusing, considering that both documents were obsoleted (or just about
> to be obsoleted in case of RFC 3281). Shouldn't this be RFC 5280 and
That's an honest issue. We certainly can't make those changes without
also changing the RFC number. But if we do make those changes, what else
"needs to change"? Can we avoid boilerplate change issues?
And, provided RFC 3852 retains its original date (which I _think_ is
a given), I would opine that those references _should_not_ change.
>> This abbreviated Last Call is focused solely on whether downrefs to
>> these Proposed Standards are appropriate in the context of RFC 3852.
So, I will comment on that: IMHO, any such downrefs are appropriate.
The issue in advancing to Draft Standard is multiple implementations.
We _have_ multiple implementations based on precisely those references.
I cannot imagine more appropriate references.
John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>