RE: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.t
xtRobert,
I understand what it was pointing to. My suggestion was simply to change
the reference tag itself, not the reference. Referencing RFC 2631 by
[x942] is misleading since the former is only a profiled approximation of
the latter.
Regards,
-John
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Zuccherato
[mailto:robert(_dot_)zuccherato(_at_)entrust(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 9:02 AM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; 'John C. Kennedy'
Subject: RE: Working Group Last Call:
draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.t xt
John;
Actually, the [x942] reference points to:
[x942] E. Rescorla, "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method",
draft-ietf-smime-x942-0X.txt, work in progress.
Which was the Internet Draft for RFC 2631, not the X9.42 draft. All of
the references are being updated to point to the appropriate RFCs.
Robert.
----------
From: John C. Kennedy[SMTP:jkennedy(_at_)trustpoint(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 5:20 PM
To: Robert Zuccherato; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: 'Burt Kaliski'; 'Linn, John'
Subject: RE: Working Group Last Call:
draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.t xt
RE: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.t
xtRobert,
My concerns about alignment and attribution with the X9.42 draft
stated
recently on the mailing list are applicable here. I suggest replacing
[x942] with [RFC2631], or something similar. RFC 2631 is currently,
and
presumably will remain, the normative reference; not the ANSI draft.
Even
if X9.42 ever becomes a standard, RFC2631 will continue to profile or
otherwise approximate it but still remain the normative reference.
-John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature