A couple issues with the proposed RFC version of PKCS #5 v2 draft needed to
be resolved, we should be submitting a revised version shortly. Thanks for
the encouragement.
-- Burt Kaliski
RSA Laboratories
-----Original Message-----
From: pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)auckland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz
[mailto:pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)auckland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 8:46 AM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: pkcs-editor(_at_)rsa(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-password-00
"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.