[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: please double-check your charters

SMIME is an older version too. We also added a pointer to the Interop Report we produced (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc3852.txt and http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc3852.pdf). 

This is what the charter used to say:
The S/MIME WG was established in the winter of 1997 to define MIME encapsulation techniques of objects whose format was based on PKCS#7 (RFC2315). These encapsulation techniques can be used to provide security services for an arbitrary encapsulated content.
Initially the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) (RFC2630) was not algorithm independent; however, the 1st revision separated the syntax (RFC3369) and the algorithms (RFC3370) to allow the two to be updated without affecting one another. Since this split, other documents have been written to document the use of CMS with other algorithms (e.g., ECDSA, AES, GOST). Also since the initial CMS, additional key management techniques (e.g., password-based and an extensible type) and encapsulation techniques (e.g., compression) have been added and other documents have been written to add additional security services. CMS is also transport independent, and documents have been written to define a consistent way to transport MIME objects.
The S/MIME specifications, one for the message specification and another for certificate handling, have been updated to migrate algorithms over time. 

Appropriate WG topics are as follows:
- Specifications for the use of additional cryptographic algorithms with CMS. 
- Specifications that define additional CMS content types.
- Specifications to document algorithm migration of S/MIME.
- With the approval of the area director, specifications that define additional CMS security services.
The WG will perform interoperability testing to progress the CMS and S/MIME Specifications to Draft Standard. 

spt

Joe Hildebrand wrote:

It looks like XMPP may be messed up as well.

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/charter
Shows 
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

At the bottom, and our description is gone.

On 10/15/09 9:37 AM, "Henrik Levkowetz" <henrik at levkowetz.com> wrote:


Hi Tom,

On 2009-10-15 16:15 Phelan, Tom said the following:

Hi Henrik,

The milestones on what's currently shown for the DCCP charter
(http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/dccp-charter.html and the tools
page) are wrong.  They seem to be a combination of old and new
milestones, and I'm not sure they include all of the current milestones.

You can now see a complete list of all the charter changes, including
trivial routine changes in internet-drafts, at the bottom of the charters
page for dccp: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/charters .  I hope that can
help you work out the correct current milestones, so the secretariat can
be notified.

Regards,

Henrik


Tom P.


-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:henrik at levkowetz.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:10 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Ben Campbell; David Harrington; Working Group Chairs; dccp-
chairs at tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: please double-check your charters

Hi Lars,

On 2009-10-14 21:27 Lars Eggert said the following:

Hi,

some far DCCP. Moreover, the dated links on top of the tools page

are

also confused.

The dated links simply reflect when there was a change in what was

pulled

from the database.  I've been saving the www.ietf.org/ietf/1wg-
charters.txt
file multiple times per day since 2006-07-03, and the individual WG
charter
history is based on that.

As far as I can tell from the additional information you provide

below,

the
restore after the outage on 2008-02-05 reverted to the old 2006 'is
chartered'
version.


The more current versions (the ones having "is
maintaining" in the first line rather than "is chartered") are dated
from 2006...

(And I can't tell which one is the actual current one because after
the massive recharter from design to maintenance mode - reflected in
the wording change above and many other changes - I believe we did
some minor rechartering.)

Could it be that the minor rechartering changed only milestones?  I

only

recently started including the milestone information in the snapshots

you

see on http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dccp/charters.

If so, the charter text from 2006-12-29 should be the correct one (no
changes were seen during 2007) and hopefully the milestones from the
2009-10-14 snapshot are correct.  If the milestones are hopelessly

wrong,

let me know, and I can produce all the changes since 2006-07-03,

including

milestone and document information (which I excluded from the charters
history because it makes it much harder to find actual charter changes
when 90% of the changes occur in the lists of internet-drafts and

RFCs.

Regards,

Henrik



Lars

On 2009-10-15, at 2:46, Ben Campbell wrote:


SIMPLE has the charter wrong on both the tools page and the

"current

official charter" page.

On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:15 AM, David Harrington wrote:


Hi,

I checked the syslog page and found that the tools.ietf.org

charter

link showed an older version than the
http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/syslog-charter page (which you

get

if you click on "current charter" from the tools.ietf.org page.

Henrik is investigating.

I think you probably need to pay attention to which page you

check,

and report which URL is out of date.
On the other hand, they already know there is a problem, so

sending

lots of reports of the same problem won't be that helpful. So you
might to check to see if you have th eproblem, and then give them

a

few days to fix it, and check again later.

dbh


-----Original Message-----
From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:37 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Working Group Chairs
Subject: Re: please double-check your charters

SIMPLE is clearly hosed. How do we go about fixing it?

On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:


Hi,

we just found another case of a WG (DCCP) where the charter

text was

rolled back to some (much) earlier version during the IETF

web site

migration. I suggest that you take a quick look at your

charters to

double-check that they say what they should be saying.

Lars

PS: The milestones were OK, it was the actual charter text

that was

outdated.