[Top] [All Lists]

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

2001-08-16 05:52:04


You are correct that this approach might delay the x400wrap document. The alternative is to replicate the same information in both documents.


At 01:02 AM 8/15/2001 -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
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.


-----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, 
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


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


-----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
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,
may want to reference the son-of-rfc 2632 and son-of-rfc 2633 documents
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,
>section is now required both here and in the message draft.