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

Jim Schaad <> Wed, 20 June 2018 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A7D130F99; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DYYyxmKQ8Fst; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E996F130F3A; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:23:00 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'Russ Housley' <>, 'Ben Campbell' <>
CC: 'SPASM' <>, 'IESG' <>,
References: <> <000701d40843$c29d0b50$47d721f0$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:25:56 -0700
Message-ID: <000c01d408aa$fe21af70$fa650e50$>
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: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:26:11 -0000



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.





From: Russ Housley <> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 8:12 AM
To: Ben Campbell <>
Cc: Jim Schaad <>; SPASM <>; IESG <>;
Subject: Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)




§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