One more time, with feeling. New versions of the S/MIME v2 drafts are now
Message draft: <http://www.imc.org/draft-dusse-smime-msg>
I believe that we're done with this. John Myers objections to our use of
application/mime caused the application/mime draft to be changed.
The following changes were made between the -04 and -05 revisions of
this draft based on comments from Kazuhiko Yamamoto:
Fixed errors in the MIME examples in 3.1.4, 126.96.36.199, and F.2 where the
base64 text didn't have a blank line before the separator.
In 3.1.1, changed "character set" to "charset" and added a reference to
the list of registered charsets.
Certificates draft: <http://www.imc.org/draft-dusse-smime-cert>
I do *not* believe that we're done here. I incorporated the changes that
people who commented seemed to agree on, but there were other comments that
I couldn't incorporate. Let's do (at least) one more round on this. Of
course, we can't be completely specific here because it is based on PKIX
which is still a bit of a moving target. However, let's make sure all v 2
implementors can implement from this spec to the best of our abilities.
Also, instead of commenting with questions, please make all your comments
suggested wording changes. It's OK if others object to your changes, but
starting from a question won't get a change in if no one answers.
The following changes were made between the -03 and -04 revisions of
In 2.1, changed "revocation time" to "nextUpdate time".
In 2.1, removed the somewhat ambiguous sentence about agents retrieving
CRLs in any fashion they are provided.
In 2.3, added "Clients MUST support chaining based on the
distinguished name and SHOULD support chaining based on the
In 4.4, replaced last paragraph with explanation of what should and
shouldn't be marked as critical.
In 4.4.1, added "Certificates SHOULD contain a basicContstraints
Open issue: what is the OID being referred to in 5.2?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium