Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Denis:

The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call period was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area Director,
but in this case he cannot play this role).

So it is "one" against "one" and Sam is now the single Security Area Director allowed to make a decision.

In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low.
Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret.
I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like making the dead peole talk.

I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise.

In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on the mailing list
and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses.

If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to "you" (i.e. Sam and the co-chairs).

I am dumbfounded by this characterization of the dialogue.

First, we had an extend exchange during WG Last Call, and you were unable to communicate any problem that justified further changes. As Blake has already said, some of your comments were accepted.

Second, this topic was discussed at the San Diego meeting. Sadly, I do not see anything in the minutes, by I recall it being discussed as a dependency for the document that Jim and Sean are writing to deal with multiple signatures on S/MIME messages. I recall this portion of the document being discussed:

|     signerInfos is a collection of per-signer information.  There MAY
|     be any number of elements in the collection, including zero.  When
|     the collection represents more than one signature, the successful
|     validation of one of signature from each signer ought to be
|     treated as a successful validation of the signed-data content
|     type.  However, there are some application environments where
|     other rules are needed.  ...

It was discussed because the document that Jim and Sean are writing will provide the application-specific rules for S/MIME.

At the San Diego meeting I recall asking if anyone supported your position but was staying silent because they thought that you were doing a good job as champion for that position. No one spoke up.

So, it is not "one against one." I know that the WG Chairs have consulted several people before declaring that the WG had reached rough consensus. And, the write-up that the WG chairs sent to Sam (in his role as Security AD that is shepherding this document) clearly indicated that you did not agree, but that you have failed to gain any support for your position.

The only form of compromise that you appear to find acceptable is the adoption of your words. I think that the long thread on the S/MIME WG mail list shows that I took the time to try to understand your position (again, some of your comments were accepted). You were not able to gain support for your position.

I do not think it is appropriate to rehash the same discussion in the IETF mail list that has already taken place on the S/MIME WG mail list.

Russ


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]