RE: [wss-comment] wss swa profile 1.1, section 2.1.1

[<Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>]

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/.