ietf-smime
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2001-08-15 08:54:15

Jim,

This is a good point that I hadn't considered.  I can go with "aligning with" 
instead of "referencing".  Okay?

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:jimsch(_at_)nwlink(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 04:03
To: 'Bonatti, Chris'; 'Housley, Russ'; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-x400wrap-03


I am not sure that I agree with this.  I would like to see these drafts
progress and that cannot happen if you are going to reference son-of-MSG
until it finishes.

jim

-----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 Bonatti, 
Chris
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 6:20 PM
To: Housley, Russ; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-x400wrap-03



Russ,

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.

Chris


-----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, 
Russ
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.

Russ

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.