All, The I-D under LC, draft-gennai-smime-cnipa-pec, looks like a _first-class_ (counter-)example suitable to be fed into the IAB document "Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful" (yet it's too late -- that's already shipped to the RFC Editor!). In this context, the provenance of the reported national standard would be regarded as an SDO without liaison to the IETF. draft-gennai-smime-cnipa-pec contains so many violations of existing standards and tries to establish extensions in ways explicitely not foreseen in the Internet email standards that it actually should not appear on the IETF stream *at all*. It might be considered as an Informational document for the Independent Submission Stream, and there it would perhaps be one of the exceptional cases I have referred to recently [1] on this list, where a *huge* IESG Note would perhaps be appropriate, stating that this memo is a subject of instruction on how protocol extensions to IETF Standards by other standards organizations should NOT be done. Another surprising observation can be made by looking into the IETF Datatracker at the URL given in the Last Call announcement [2]: The draft has entered the Status Tracker in status "Publication Requested" at the same day LC has been requested and issued as well. Usually, the AD starts taking a closer look at a document aiming at Standards Track, entering it into the Tracker in state "AD is Watching", and later accepts a publication request, most likely after having performed his AD review of the document and -- if necessary -- having obtained applicable area directorate reviews. I've never seen a document suggested for PS where the AD apparently has started watching, performed his review, accepted the publication request, and triggered IETF Last Call at the same day. A full IETF Tools / Google search of the SMIME archive has revealed only a few comments on the -00 draft version, pointing out intrinsic issues of PEC and/or its description in the draft, and an implementer's view. There has not been any discussion of the properties of the protocol and/or its relationship to existing Internet standards. Isn't such discussion a pre-requirement for PS? I strongly assume the the quoted presentation at IETF 71 did not reveal the level of detail that would have enabled the audience to become aware of the conflicts with the Standards. Sorry for having to be politically incorrect: This all reminds me in a disastrous manner of the deranged relation of some political leadership (of the country where the draft originates from) to law and democratic separation of powers that can be found described in the News these days. :-( So my recommendation simply is: Cancel LC; back to square one! [1] http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59026.html [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-gennai-smime-cnipa-pec/ Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@xxxxxxxxx | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf