- 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>
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 UTC