Russ,
I would have a strong prefrence for either 2 or 3. (Actually 3 would be
nice since I would then have the ASN.1 for a v1 attribute certificate.)
I disagree that this is a simple editorial change as we need to get
compiles dones of the ASN.1 before it is finished and I don't want to
try that in the 48 hour editors area. In the past changes to the ASN.1
modules have been deemed non-editorial changes.
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Housley, Russ [mailto:rhousley(_at_)rsasecurity(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:50 AM
To: jimsch(_at_)exmsft(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: cmsalg
Jim:
As you pointed out in a message last week, the ASN.1 modules in both
rfc2630bis and cmsalg still include IMPORT statements from ITU-T
documents. You recommended that these IMPORT statements
reference the
ASN.1 modules in the PKIX documents instead. I did not make
this change
because there are no PKIX documents that include the definition of v1
attribute certificates.
As I see it, we have three choices:
1. Do nothing. Continue to IMPORT from ITU-T documents.
2. Use PKIX for everything except for v1 attribute
certificates; IMPORT v1
attribute certificates from ITU-T.
3. Use PKIX for everything except for v1 attribute
certificates; define v1
attribute certificates in the rfc2630bis appendix.
I prefer either 1 or 3, so that all of the IMPORTS come from
the same class
of documents (RFC or ITU-T Recommendation).
If we choose 1, then no further action is needed.
If we choose 3, then I would like to make these editorial
changes when any
other IETF Last Call comments are handled. I consider this
an editorial
change since it does not impact any implementation. No bits
on the wire
are impacted.
Russ
At 07:43 PM 8/21/2001 -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
[JLS] I would request that the PKIX module be used rather than the
X.509 since that is more widely available.