ietf-smime
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-password-00

1999-11-18 17:44:09
"Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch(_at_)Exchange(_dot_)Microsoft(_dot_)com> writes:

From: pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)aucKland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz 
[mailto:pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)aucKland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz]

"Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch(_at_)Exchange(_dot_)Microsoft(_dot_)com> 
writes:

1. Section 2.1.  What is the timing you expect to see relative to PKCS5v2
being advanced to an RFC of some type?

I have no idea.  Does it need to be?  Like the other PKCS's I assume it can
be turned into an RFC in no time, but is that a requirement?

It is my understanding that if you want this document to following standards
track, you are not going to be able to reference a non-fixed document.  The 
PKCS documents have not meet that criteria in the past and thus the reason 
why we got them published as informational to get the S/MIME v2 drafts in. 
I believe this is also a requirement for publishing the password draft as
informational as well but am not sure.  Therefore this is a blocking factor 
for moving the document forward.

I've cc'd this to the PKCS editors address to get their comments on this, 
RFC 231[345] are all informational RFC's which are just the PKCS originals 
with RFC boilerplate, if that's required then it shouldn't be too hard to do
the same for PKCS #5v2.

Peter.