Multiple Attachments for Electronic Data Interchange - Internet Integration (EDIINT)
draft-meadors-multiple-attachments-ediint-14
Yes
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-03-12)
Unknown
Should this document be published with "no IETF consensus" boilerplate?
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-05-24)
Unknown
This is an individual submission of an Informational document I picked up from Alexey, so I don't know the full history. Sean's discuss (the only one) has been cleared, so I could approve it, but since half of the IESG hasn't entered a position, I'd like to double-check and have people give it a gander before sending it on its merry way.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-16)
Unknown
In the Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 15-Mar-2011, a concern is raised. Please consider it: There is a space in the declaration of boundary=" INNER-BOUNDARY"; in the example in section 3. I am not sure whether this was intentional or whether it will mess up a standard MIME parser, but you may want to remove it.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-16)
Unknown
Sec 2.3 says: If the expected MIC value differs from the calculated MIC value, all attachments MUST be considered invalid and retransmitted. Isn't telling the initiator that they didn't match and asking for the retransmission missing?
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-30)
Unknown
Even though this has enough positions to go ahead, Pete asked if newbies like me were ok with that, so since I'd not seen this before, I took a look. I've no problem if these are ignored really, but fwiw: (1) The draft says that people "began" doing stuff, which is fine, but would be even better with some references to that (if some exist) so the reader could understand better. (2) s/this body is covered/this body are covered/ (3) It says the attachments "should" be inter-related - is that meant to be a 2119 SHOULD? I'm also unclear as to what inter-related means, but I guess that's really a higher layer issue (in which case do you really need to impose the constraint at this level?). If that was a 2119 SHOULD then under which conditions is it ok to ignore the rule? (maybe easiest is s/should/ought/ just to avoid potential 2119 confusion) (4) I think 2.3 says that for an encrypted message the MIC is calculated over the plaintext but is sent outside the encryption. If so, that's less common than also encrypting the MIC and is usually specifically justified, but maybe I'm misreading it (and I didn't go read the references to check sorry;-) (5) Section 4 mentions "the three EDI-INT transport standards" but doesn't include the references at that point - I think it'd be good to repeat those for clarity.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-16)
Unknown
There are a number of id-nits that need be fixed before the document considered ready for publication (IANA section and RFC2119 language). Also the editor should confirm that all of the lower case "should" instances are correctly set.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown