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

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:51:09 -0500

>>>>> "Blake" == Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]> writes:

    Blake> OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and
    Blake> try to clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments
    Blake> or criticism about what my role is or how I should proceed
    Blake> with this.

    Blake> * My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ)
    Blake> has created a draft that incorporates what we consider to
    Blake> be the rough consensus of the working group.

    Blake> * You had some comments on this draft. Some of your
    Blake> comments were incorporated. Some of your comments had zero
    Blake> support from the WG members on the working group mailing
    Blake> list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly who else
    Blake> supported these comments.

You also have a job to make sure WG last call comments are responded
to and that technical issuse are addressed.

For the issues Denis raised, I'm also probably going to require
something stronger than "No one agreed."  I'd like to know why he's
wrong.

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

---

From: "Denis Pinkas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:00:43 +0100

Sam,

>>>>>> "Denis" == Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>    Denis> Sam,
>    >>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>    Russ> Denis: I do not consider these to be new comments.  You made
>    Russ> them during WG Last Call, and there was considerable
>    Russ> discussion on the S/MIME WG mail list.  In the end, you were
>    Russ> unable to gain any support for your position.  Why do you
>    Russ> feel I need to respond to the same comments again?
>
>    >> I tend to agree with Russ.
>
>    Denis> I do not see how it may be possible to reach a consensus if
>    Denis> a dialogue is not accepted.
>
>Russ is the editor.  You said that you have already brought these
>issues up in the WG.  It is no longer Russ's job to engage with you if
>he does not want to.

You previously said:

"I strongly suggest that you try and build consensus for these two
positions separately".

I keep trying. Now you say:

>It is the WG chairs' job to describe the reasoning for why your
>comments were rejected during the WG discussion and I've asked the
>chairs to do that.

This does not sound to be a way to try to build consensus for these two
positions separately. Am I missing something ?

Denis