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

Mary Barnes <> Tue, 12 December 2017 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2921294EC for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZH3uhXCDiQB for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACB04127076 for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e2so49521989qti.0 for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=titrVh0ZJkYzpB69s8nKU3MkUXhYYxI09W/d5vfDQ2M=; b=o8Yb8TPOfh5sLd0HlHH1KmtH0XRSzj2I3zHviV8g94h4QkXrORbhJVyo0dZHVHR4mk L2i+ltn9+CTrMBu8WOflqq2pAinZXhQOO/+gZ5wtnkSbQCv7Scfhi0eXeuSrV8hwl8H9 D9kgt5yl1TlM1VoxJL6qeYHFi0+xLNrapY7onYX9oCEKbxjw1gepTWYYsbJn9Y3i6Oa7 3z9bDOsFuTTPt0Qu9xxnhkkfn2uWnCTURNDfnwqVFRB8Oj9nxoX/dCDyzvZxj99Pb6qU CSU2hzAQlNknF7e+HiX00GWzejDiAmiYp93NC7hWEsFTVsUDhLUGGwgSbSihF+srqJu2 soOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=titrVh0ZJkYzpB69s8nKU3MkUXhYYxI09W/d5vfDQ2M=; b=Gv/yqNRiox9c6fumIFbWLAdtzO3z2KSG8uRhPQwHpmd8eT6BcVxQRrtjIFThxhgz6d 2rGFxp5JRMDDxH+lp13iVb9XIN3oWIZa2iRnDMA71CT5AFQk4FgupquVUiaQzNcWUWEj o5R2GIu2DIWy9Vk6C6tlUtDQgSwFGOaYNx73mRIS9+m0tzf2AoiEYI9/9iTkanjOTASs Ae66q6CsfSTqEp9KvM0bzeyXZjTLe0KCf53C4F/0EiPKkVLx8VUBof5BhPf7NUJCHFT7 fHmkfoQnBYbCvvr/pV297lDvJKO6CYsUYSdmq0zdi7y0662LogvxbdP/dMyAmNC1sUua whqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIv6YGM1HL7xCOnJaEqfGBrRj/Yier7mVO7S9IfwvQrYbGqkL0F fE0PDrKDBa/Jp//RbnpRPfATnhrYxzHxPHiobrw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosk9OXNTGa0RAiO1sekFonL69TkbmbglGMwCL/Qd0vMMFrzUyGPU9Qzj628BPkhm4+13Mr6o4O8MWu56hSdFA4=
X-Received: by with SMTP id k123mr6130226qkd.341.1513102054614; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Mary Barnes <>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:07:33 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <>, DISPATCH list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c072730796db50560288628"
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 18:07:38 -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.


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

> Hi,
> > 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 :)
> Regards,
> Christer
> 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