I would certainly get the ASN.1 checked to make sure that it compiles
before posting the updated draft in response to IETF Last Call.
Alternative #3 is the only one that we both like. I would like to hear
At 11:56 AM 10/8/2001 -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
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.
> -----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
> 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.
> 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.