Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-sha2-01

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:22 -0500

The WG LC closed on Wednesday of last week. We received no comments on this
ID. We'll forward it along to the Security AD. 

spt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Blake Ramsdell
>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:25 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-sha2-01
>
>
>This message initiates an SMIME Working Group Last Call on the 
>document:
>
> Title     : Using SHA2 Algorithms with Cryptographic Message Syntax
> Author(s) : S. Turner
> Filename  : draft-ietf-smime-sha2-01.txt
> Pages     : 10
> Date      : 2007-7-25
>
>This document describes the conventions for using the message 
>digest algorithms SHA-224, as defined in [RFC3874], and 
>SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, as defined in [SHA2], with the 
>Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC3852].
>It also describes the conventions for using these algorithms 
>with CMS and the DSA, RSA, and ECDSA signature algorithms. 
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-sha2-01.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 9 Janurary 2008.
>
>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
>--
>Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com
>