The application/cms Media Type
draft-turner-application-cms-media-type-08
Yes
(Stephen Farrell)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
Recuse
(Sean Turner)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-08 for -07)
Unknown
I'm not a fan of MUSTs and SHOULDs in media type registrations; if they are really necessary, I suspect a protocol document is needed rather than hiding them in the registration. But the two paragraphs with occurrences of these things give me pause:
id-data [RFC5652] MUST NOT be used if it is the only inner content
listed and the data is MIME content; when id-data is used to
encapsulate MIME, the media type application/pkcs7-mime media type
defined in [RFC5751] SHOULD be used.
Really? What harm will come of me or the rest of the Internet if I use id-data in one of these things? Color me suspicious that there is an interoperability problem here.
When processing a SignedData around any of the inner content type
the [RFC5652] validation rules MUST be used. The PKCS #7 [RFC2315]
validation rules MUST NOT be used.
Would someone really consider using 2315 validation rules? Isn't it enough that 5652 is standards track and 2315 is Informational (and old)?
The Content-Type header field of all application/cms objects SHOULD
include the optional "encapsulatingContent" and "innerContent"
parameters.
It might be *nice* to use encapsulatingContent and innerContent, but I'm not sure why you SHOULD. I think it would be sufficient to explain in the definitions of those parameters *why* they are useful and then you wouldn't need to say this.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(for -07)
Unknown