Denis Pinkas wrote: <snip> > The main advantage is to get the RFC referenced on the > S-MIME WG main page.
If this is really the main advantage, talking with [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be easier than publishing an RFC. <snip> > >At any rate, the document abstract and/or introduction should > >briefly explain the relationship with ETSI, including who is > >responsible for maintaining the spec, and the reasons for > >publishing it in two document series. > > The current text has been reviewed by the lawyers from ETSI and > an agreement was not that easy. :-( > > Any change would need to be resubmmited to the ETSI laywers. Err... if it's not possible even to add a sentence saying "This document is maintained by ETSI", why is this document going through IETF last call? If the IETF community is asked to comment the document, certainly changes should be possible. <snip> > >4) The document slightly changes the section ordering/numbering > >compared to the ETSI TS. I'd suggest keeping them exactly the > >same to save work and hassle (or, at the very least, explicitly > >giving the mapping between ETSI section numbers and section > >numbers used here). > > This is unfortunately not possible because the RFC mandates > some clauses in a certain order, while the ETSI TS does something > different. The RFC editor recommends a particular section ordering, but for most sections, does not absolute require it. If there's a good reason (and in this case, there is), I think there's some room for keeping the section order identical to the ETSI TS. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
