Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate Handling
draft-ietf-smime-rfc2632bis-07
Yes
(Russ Housley)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Harald Alvestrand)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Ted Hardie)
(Thomas Narten)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-10)
Unknown
No IPR section. I assume RFC-Editor will add it.
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
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-10)
Unknown
In Section 3 (2nd paragraph), I'm a little confused by the text that says receiving implementations MUST "recognize and accept" certificates that contain no email address. What asssurance are such certificates providing in the mail context? How are they processed? Given the importance placed on matching the subjectAltName with the From header field of an email in later paragraphs, I found the lack of procedures for this case a little odd.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-08)
Unknown
"BER" and "DER" are included in the list of definitions in section 1.1, but they're not used anywhere in the document that I could find. They should probably be removed.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-09)
Unknown
-
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown