Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime

Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 12 December 2017 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA813126D73 for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GT0PXTRoYDro for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C457126B7E for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:25 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-d49ff70000006bc7-fd-5a303b70dcb0
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BA.C2.27591.07B303A5; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:26:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:26:24 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
CC: Cullen Jennings <>, DISPATCH list <>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime
Thread-Index: AQHTb9ZGvM+3H/6IHUaKjTzoreqq66M+kjiAgADtUACAAHgxgIAAN0NA
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:26:23 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C0511DDESESSMB109erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7im6BtUGUwfZj4hZLJy1gtfiw/gej xef9+5kdmD12zrrL7rFkyU8mj8vnPzIGMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZTxtmsRUsKi+ouHaSuYG xjfVXYycHBICJhKzV55j72Lk4hASOMwo8WTLHCYIZwmjxN7Pk4EyHBxsAhYS3f+0QRpEBHQk vn1+ywZiMwu4Sfzq6WMCsYWB7BMtP5lBykUE3CUa2+Qgyt0k5r9oYAexWQRUJVq+fwZr5RXw lVh3/QIbxKqfjBJ/m66BJTgFAiX6P6xhBbEZBcQkvp9awwSxS1zi1pP5TBBHC0gs2XOeGcIW lXj5+B8rhK0k0bjkCSvIDcwC+RJH/2pB7BKUODnzCcsERpFZSCbNQqiahaQKIqwpsX6XPkS1 osSU7ofsELaGROucuezI4gsY2VcxihanFiflphsZ6aUWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBEbZwS2/DXYw vnzueIhRgINRiYdXTcUgSog1say4MvcQowQHs5IIb3eTfpQQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkO FiVx3pOevFFCAumJJanZqakFqUUwWSYOTqkGxpikKZ4//ec73eTM7hI6fUk65lzSIl3Wfc4S S1gLeicHicxYNSFw6/nu0AszFZp3HF1R0aG06tgLO73/KydM+5By1+Nq+6QF8ysFIwtXtGRw TtszbZ1nkZHPocdFDn/lb2YzOH9gD76W2tWyXlY/j/3sjavK8VdXMXJkXhUK232FuaygvGZv jBJLcUaioRZzUXEiAOBoNMauAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:26:29 -0000


>Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name.
>I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security
>folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review.  Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues.
>But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing.

All I care about is making sure that the appropriate people get to review the document. I’ll let others decide what the best way to achieve that is :)



On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg <<>> wrote:

> As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC.  The
> whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs).
> And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items.

While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the –00 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the –01 version.

But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I have no strong feelings whether it’s done as AD sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings <<>> wrote:

>From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.

Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>

dispatch mailing list<>