Skip to main content

Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification
draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-09

Yes

(Russ Housley)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)
(Thomas Narten)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 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 (2004-05-13) Unknown
$ idnits-v1.24 <drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-09.txt
idnits 1.24, 16 Apr 2004, 07:05

  The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section
  The document seems to use RFC 2026 boilerplate...
  The document seems to lack an 2026 Section 10.4(C) Copyright Notice
  The document seems to lack an RFC 2026 Section 10.4(C) Permission Grants Notice
  The document seems to lack an RFC 2026 Section 10.4(C) Disclaimer

  Warnings:
    The document seems to lack an RFC 2026 Section 10.4(A) Disclaimer
    The document seems to lack an RFC 2026 Section 10.4(B) IPR Disclosure Invitation
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
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2004-05-13) Unknown
Formatting problem: No index. I cast a DISCUSS at first, because I couldn't find section 1.5, which describes changes since RFC 2633.....

No reference to RFC 2633.

No security considerations section (there is a section named "Security", however).

Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-05-12) Unknown
Is it worth mentioning the need for good sources of randomness when doing DSA signatures?  It seems more appropriate for the CMS standard, but I'd think the same would apply to much of 4.1.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown