Skip to main content

Protecting Multiple Contents with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-housley-contentcollection-05

Yes

(Sam Hartman)

No Objection

(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Thomas Narten)

Recuse

(Russ Housley)

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

Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-11-17) Unknown
- first line 2nd para sect 1.2:
    s/collector that wants/collector who wants/ ?
    s/In stead/Instead/ ??
- Last sentence on page 5: s/stricture/structure/
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-11-17) Unknown
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART
Review has been sent to the author, who promised to address the readability issues raised; there were no real technical issues found.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-11-18) Unknown
Nit: First paragraph of Section 3, last sentence, 'at least on' should be 'at least one'.
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-11-16) Unknown
The document currently says:

  The content collection content type is used to transfer one or more
   contents, each identified by a content type.  The syntax accommodates
   contents with varying levels of protection.  For example, a content
   collection could include CMS protection content types as well as
   unprotected content types.  A content collection is expected to be
   encapsulated in one or more CMS protecting content types, but this is
   not required by this specification.

This strikes me as something that might need to be
called out again in the Security considerations section, as implementations
may be expecting a single level of protection for non-MIME multipart contents.
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse () Unknown