Document: draft-meadors-multiple-attachments-ediint-10
Reviewer:  Peter McCann
Review Date:  2011-02-25
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: 2011-03-03

Summary:  Ready, one question

Major issues:

Minor issues:

The MIC and signature algorithms seem to duplicate some of what
S/MIME does.  Is there a reason S/MIME couldn't have been used?

Nits/editorial comments:

Abstract:
   message were designed
SHOULD BE:
   messages were designed

Section 2.2:
   To indicate support for MA,
MA should be expanded on first use.

Section 2.3:
MIC should be expanded on first use.  (Assume this is "Message Integrity
Check")

Section 2.5:
   envelop
SHOULD BE:
   envelope