Protecting Multiple Contents with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
RFC 4073

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

(Sam Hartman) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-11-17 for -)
No email
send info
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.

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2004-11-16 for -)
No email
send info
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.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

Comment (2004-11-18 for -)
No email
send info
Nit: First paragraph of Section 3, last sentence, 'at least on' should be 'at least one'.

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-11-17 for -)
No email
send info
- 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/

(Russ Housley) Recuse