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

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:45:50 -0500

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 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Denis Pinkas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:28 +0100

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 actiis or is not possible or whether procedures
are being followed, a two-week Last Call is, IMO, inappropriate
and inconsistent with the spirit of the provisions in RFC 2026.

    john

--On Wednesday, 07 February, 2007 10:20 -0500 The IESG
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering
> Steering  Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
> 
> - 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents '
>    <draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01.txt> as an
> Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits final comments on this action.  Please send
> substantive comments to the [email-masked] mailing lists by
> 2007-02-21. Exceptionally,  comments may be sent to
> [email-masked] instead. In either case, please  retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.