Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1-02

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:58:37 -0500

This WG LC has closed, comments were received, and a new version will be 
posted prior to it being forwarded to the Security AD.

spt

Blake Ramsdell wrote:
> This message initiates an SMIME Working Group Last Call on the document:
> 
> 	Title           : New ASN.1 Modules for CMS and S/MIME
> 	Author(s)       : P. Hoffman, J. Schaad
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1-02.txt
> 	Pages           : 61
> 	Date            : 2009-01-09
> 
> The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) format, and many associated
> formats, are expressed using ASN.1.  The current ASN.1 modules
> conform to the 1988 version of ASN.1.  This document updates those
> ASN.1 modules to conform to the 2002 version of ASN.1.  There are no
> bits-on-the-wire changes to any of the formats; this is simply a
> change to the syntax.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1-02.txt
> 
> The purpose of this WG Last Call is to ensure that the Working Group has
> achieved consensus that the document is suitable for publication as a
> Standards Track RFC.
> 
> Please review the document for both technical and editorial problems.
> Technical issues should be discussed on this list. Editorial issues may be
> sent to the document editor.
> 
> The Last Call period will end on 30 January 2009.
> 
> Upon completion of the last call, the WG chairs will take action based upon
> the consensus of the WG. Possible actions include:
> 
>     1) recommending to the IETF Security Area Directors
>        that the document, after possible editorial or
>        other minor changes, be considered by the IESG
>        for publication as an Informational RFC
>        (which generally involves an IETF-wide Last Call); or
> 
>     2) requiring that outstanding issues be adequately
>        addressed prior to further action (including,
>        possibly, another WG Last Call).
> 
> Remember that it is our responsibility as Working Group members to ensure
> the quality of our documents and of the Internet Standards process.  So,
> please read and comment!
> 
> Blake