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.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:21 GMT