Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3851bis-05.txt

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:44:42 -0400

So far, I have not seen any comments on this WG last Call 
thread.  Note that the WG Last Call ends tomorrow.

Russ

At 08:33 PM 8/21/2008, Turner, Sean P. wrote:

>This message initiates an SMIME Working Group Last Call on the document:
>
>  Title  : Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME)
>               Version 3.2 Message Specification
>  Author(s)      : B. Ramsdell, S. Turner
>  Filename       : draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-05.txt
>  Pages  : 45
>  Date           : 2008-8-21
>
>This document defines Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME)
>version 3.2.  S/MIME provides a consistent way to send and receive secure
>MIME data.  Digital signatures provide authentication, message integrity,
>and non-repudiation with proof of origin. Encryption provides data
>confidentiality.  Compression can be used to reduce data size.  This
>document obsoletes RFC 3851.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-05.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 8 September 2008.
>
>Upon completion of the last call, the WG chairs will take action based upon
>the consensus of the WG. As the authors are also the WG co-chairs, Russ
>Housley has offered to make consensus calls and the WG chairs have agreed to
>abide by Russ's consensus calls.  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!
>
>spt