Last Call Review of draft-turner-application-cms-media-type-07
review-turner-application-cms-media-type-07-opsdir-lc-baker-2014-01-09-00
Request | Review of | draft-turner-application-cms-media-type |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-01-07 | |
Requested | 2013-11-11 | |
Authors | Sean Turner , Russ Housley , Jim Schaad | |
I-D last updated | 2014-01-09 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Wassim Haddad
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Fred Baker (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Fred Baker |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-turner-application-cms-media-type by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2014-01-09 |
review-turner-application-cms-media-type-07-opsdir-lc-baker-2014-01-09-00
I have been asked to comment on draft-turner-application-cms-media-type for the Ops Directorate. I need to initially point out that I am not personally an expert in CMS or in electronic mail. I would hope that the IESG would also solicit reviews from folks that are. What I have looked for is matters in which a firewall, router, middleware device, or MTA is required to do something it would not normally do with an electronic mail message, especially interpretation of the object in an intermediate node. If the creation of a CMS media type resulted in such devices needing to handle the data specially, that would raise an operational flag. I see no such requirement; the handling of a CMS media type is entirely done in an MUA or an MTA acting as an MUA for the purposes of filtering email. From that perspective, I see no operational issues. Attachment: signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail