[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-x400wrap-03

2001-08-14 18:20:26


I think that referencing son-of-MSG would be best, since the protection is 
really targeted at the same kind of functional use... e-mail.  It's just a 
different e-mail.

I'll take a look at Blake's draft and see whether I can propose some text.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Housley, 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 15:48
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-x400wrap-03

Correct.  At the face-to-face meeting in London last week, there was strong 
consensus that the CMS not specify any mandatory to implement 
algorithms.  I just sent of the revised I-Ds to implement this 
decision.  As a result, all protocols that employ the CMS MUST specify 
their mandatory to implement algorithms.  However, in this case, x400wrap 
may want to reference the son-of-rfc 2632 and son-of-rfc 2633 documents to 
ensure comparability.


At 10:29 AM 8/8/2001 +0100, Jim Schaad wrote:
1.  Is it intentional that there is no section on content encryption
algorithms for MUSTs?

Yes.  From the beginning, the model for this draft was RFC 2633.  We
dealt with this only in the "options" for CMS, and what it says has
crept in through various comments.

I would be content to say nothing about algorithms in WRAP, and leave
the topic to CMS (Son-of-CMS).  However, I don't think the division is
easy to make cleanly.

[JLS]  With the most recent change of omitting algorithms from CMS, this
section is now required both here and in the message draft.