[Top] [All Lists]

RE: WG Last Call: cmsalg

2001-08-19 22:39:19
1.  Introduction:  CMSALG cannot have a protocol requirement on CMS.  Please
lowercase MAY statements in the first paragraph of the introduction.

2.  Section 2.1:  There is a conflict between MUST in the next to last and
SHOULD in the last paragraph for handling the presence of NULL algorithm

3.  Section 3.2: The paragraph "CMS implentations that support ..." should
be removed.  This is a protocol statement on CMS not CMSALGs.

4.  Section 4.1:  I think that the following sentence should be removed from
the text.  I have two problems with this statement.  First, it is imposing a
MUST on a CMS implementation rather than on algorithms.  Second, a protocol
that requires only RSA and 3DES does not need to require 3DES-WRAP as well.

"Any symmetric encryption algorithm that a CMS implementation includes as a
content-encryption algorithm MUST also be included as a key-encryption

That said, I do think that a variation of the criteria should be stated.
"When a key agreement algorithm is used, a key-encrytion algorithm is also
required.  In this case a key-encryption algorithm MUST be provided for each
content-encryption algorithm."

5.  Section 4.1: "A CMS implemenation MAY support mixed..." This paragraph
should be moved into the description of each key-wrap algorithm.  Thus
"3DES-Wrap implementations MAY support wrapping of non-3DES keys."

6.  Section 4.1.1:  "ukm MAY be present or absent."  I think this makes no
sense from a protocol sense.  I believe that one implemenation could require
presence and another could require absense thus leading to
non-interopability.  I had thought the requirements on this was going to be
"ukm may be either present or absent.  Implemenations MUST support ukm being
absent and SHOULD support be present."

7.  Section 4.1.1: description of keyEnryptionAlgorithm. "KeyWrapAlgorihtm"
is misspelt.

8.  Section 4.4, Para 2:  This contains a MUST on CMS.  It needs to be

9.  Section 4.4:  Some of the PBKDF2 restrictions from the password draft
have been lost:
A) Only the salt CHOICE requires support

10. Section 6.1:  Last paragraph should have MUST not must.

11.  ASN Module:
cmsalg.asn(124) : error 1019: Type symbol AlgorithmIdentifier never

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
On Behalf Of Housley, Russ
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:15 AM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: WG Last Call: rfc2630bis and cmsalg

The update to CMS is ready for WG Last Call.  Please post all comments on 
both documents to the S/MIME WG mail list by 31 August 2001.

        Title           : Cryptographic Message Syntax
        Author(s)       : R. Housley
        Filename        : draft-ietf-smime-rfc2630bis-02.txt
        Pages           : 52
        Date            : 13-Aug-01

        Title           : Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms
        Author(s)       : R. Housley
        Filename        : draft-ietf-smime-cmsalg-02.txt
        Pages           : 26
        Date            : 14-Aug-01

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>