[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss-comment] wss swa profile 1.1, section 2.1.1
Dale Thanks, referring to RFC2633 instead of RFC2311 seems like a good idea. I've updated the draft to reflect this suggestion. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:56 PM > To: wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [wss-comment] wss swa profile 1.1, section 2.1.1 > > > RFC 2633 (SMIME version 3) updates RFC 2311 (SMIME version 2). > > RFC 2311 is only Informational track, while RFC 2633 is > Standards Track. > > I would propose referencing RFC 2633 because its standards track. > > There seem to be very few changes, if any, between the > canonicalization > sections. > > Dale Moberg > > To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to > wss-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]