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

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A7D130F99; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DYYyxmKQ8Fst; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E996F130F3A; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:23:00 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>, 'Ben Campbell' <ben@nostrum.com>
CC: 'SPASM' <spasm@ietf.org>, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis@ietf.org
References: <152938120582.3146.786592198431535201.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <000701d40843$c29d0b50$47d721f0$@augustcellars.com> <56E0819D-6A8C-45A0-A90A-3585AE2DA580@nostrum.com> <7C1AAC8D-BF70-4A8F-A486-77731EB8BC74@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C1AAC8D-BF70-4A8F-A486-77731EB8BC74@vigilsec.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:25:56 -0700
Message-ID: <000c01d408aa$fe21af70$fa650e50$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01D40870.51C48520"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQG7YC7JYjx9uGVQicKMVWQcNfb8sgKd9pJhAotrbMcBGLzCv6RohBKA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/5P5IX4FVB4da6BCk2uGQ5IOaBzE>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:26:11 -0000

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 <housley@vigilsec.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 8:12 AM
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>; SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis@ietf.org
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