From owner-ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org Thu Jun 12 22:26:03 1997
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 19:18:27 -0700
From: "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Hello, is anyone out there?
At 6:58 PM -0700 6/12/97, Charles Breed wrote:
1. When will the next version of the S/MIME spec be posted?
(hopefully, clarifying the FOO(_at_)40-bit issue)
Soon. We're still waiting to hear from the RFC editor and Internet Drafts
editors with the draft that will replace RC2.
2. Is there going to be a working-group formed before the Jeff Schiller
July 1st date?
Highly unlikely. No one has expressed much interest in a charter.
That was a rhetorical wake-up call, right? I thought there was much
interest expressed in Memphis for forming a working group *even if*
1) the name had to be changed because the trademark/change-control issue
couldn't be resolved, and
2) the IETF spec wouldn't require backward interoperability because the
RC2 IPR issue couldn't be resolved
From Laurence's minutes:
"Jeff (area director): S/MIME IPR issue must be resolved by July 1,
1997 or working group cannot be formed
Tim (RSA Inc.): RSA can work with that time frame
(editor's summary: RSA must resolve two issues before a working group
can begin work towards a standard.
1) S/MIME must not rely on a trade secret (RC2),
2) Change control must be with the IETF (e.g., the rights to the
"S/MIME" trademark must be neutrally held.) These must be resolved by
July 1, 1997. The RSA representive acknowledged this)."
Has RSA made a statement yet resolving these two points?
Regardless of what that statement says/will say, there is interest in
forming a working group, and working around the name and/or algorithm
problems if necessary. (I assume that it will be necessary to replace
As for the charter itself, who could argue with the current one? :-)
Just slip all the dates by 6 months and it's good to go.
4. Are the two S/MIME specs going on the Informational (FYI) track?
We won't know that until we finish them. We're still hoping for standards
track, of course, but a lot has to happen between here and there.
How can there be a standards track progression without a working group?
Technically it's possible according to the rules, but it hardly serves
the purpose of generating a document with buy-in from most of the
interested parties (rough consensus).