Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Jim:

I see.  That is easy.

Russ


> On Jun 20, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Russ,
>  
> My understanding is that the following is all that is needed.
>  
> Add a new paragraph to the top of each of the sections which says
>  
> This section describes the changes that were made to S/MIME when it was upgraded from S/MIME 3.1 to S/MIME v3.2.
>  
> This means one is not reliant on the section title but it is part of the text.
>  
> Jim
>  
>  
> From: Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 8:12 AM
> To: Ben Campbell <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Jim Schaad <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; SPASM <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)
>  
> Ben:
>>  
>>>> §1.4 (and subsequent change version): I infer from the section titles that the
>>>> normative keywords in these sections are intended to describe
>>>> requirements added to those versions, not new requirements in _this_
>>>> version. It would be better to make that explicit; the body text should stand
>>>> alone without the titles.
>>> 
>>> Yes that is what is intended to be said.  I agree and thus did not use keywords in section 1.6.
>>> 
>>> This is historic text copied from a previous version and as such I am slightly reluctant to change.
>>> EKR and Russ - what do you think?
>> 
>> It’s not a big deal one way or another, but a simple note that says “Version X.Y added the following:” would help.
>  
> I do not understand your suggestion.  This document specifies Version 4.0, and these sections describe the evolution from version 3 (the first one that the IETF produced) to this version.
>  
> 1.4.  Changes from S/MIME v3 to S/MIME v3.1
> 1.5.  Changes from S/MIME v3.1 to S/MIME v3.2
> 1.6.  Changes since S/MIME 3.2
>  
> Russ