ietf-smime
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3850bis-05.txt

2008-09-07 16:01:18

So far, I have not seen any comments on this WG last Call thread. Note that the WG Last Call ends tomorrow.

Russ

At 08:32 PM 8/21/2008, Turner, Sean P. wrote:

This message initiates an SMIME Working Group Last Call on the document:

 Title  : Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME)
              Version 3.2 Certificate Handling
 Author(s)      : S. Turner, B. Ramsdell
 Filename       : draft-ietf-smime-3850bis-05.txt
 Pages  : 20
 Date           : 2008-8-21

This document specifies conventions for X.509 certificate usage by
Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) agents.  S/MIME
provides a method to send and receive secure MIME messages, and certificates
are an integral part of S/MIME agent processing.  S/MIME  agents validate
certificates as described in RFC 5280, the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile.  S/MIME agents must meet the
certificate processing requirements in this document as well as those in RFC
5280. This document obsoletes RFC 3850.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-3850bis-05.txt

The purpose of this WG Last Call is to ensure that the Working Group has
achieved consensus that the document is suitable for publication as a
Standards Track RFC.

Please review the document for both technical and editorial problems.
Technical issues should be discussed on this list. Editorial issues may be
sent to the document editor.

The Last Call period will end on 8 September 2008.

Upon completion of the last call, the WG chairs will take action based upon
the consensus of the WG. As the authors are also the WG co-chairs, Russ
Housley has offered to make consensus calls and the WG chairs have agreed to
abide by Russ's consensus calls.  Possible actions include:

    1) recommending to the IETF Security Area Directors
       that the document, after possible editorial or
       other minor changes, be considered by the IESG
       for publication as an Informational RFC
       (which generally involves an IETF-wide Last Call); or

    2) requiring that outstanding issues be adequately
       addressed prior to further action (including,
       possibly, another WG Last Call).

Remember that it is our responsibility as Working Group members to ensure
the quality of our documents and of the Internet Standards process.  So,
please read and comment!

spt