W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > April 2002

Re: What do we do with our CMS References?

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204290823010.1268-100000@netbusters.com>
Yes, we should make it clear, either in the text or in our references
section, that we are using a snapshot. If they haven't issued as RFCs
we should just reference these draft as works in progress but we can
give authors, title, and date if we want.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Joseph Reagle wrote:

> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:50:28 -0400
> From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
> Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
> Subject: What do we do with our CMS References?
> I was updating the references and noted a Housley ietf-draft had been
> updated. So when we move to REC, all the other references are mature except
> for CMS-Algorithms and CMS-Wrap. Is it likely that they could change? If
> so, you also in-line specify the part of the draft that we are concerned
> with. Should we make clear that it's our text that is normative as based on
> a snapshot of the drafts at the time?
> --
> Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
> W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
> IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
> W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 09:03:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:03 UTC