I'm just wondering why these two -00 drafts, which don't seem to
have much to do with the smime wg (e.g. they don't reference any
other wg document), are being processed this way. Did I sleep for
a bit at the last meeting and miss the explanation?
My only possibly useful comment (not being able to review 48
pages including binary samples in the time alloted) is that
it'd be nice to allocate URIs for these wrapping algorithms
as well as OIDs. Or did you expect the W3C XML Encryption
group should do that? (Hope I don't cause some sort of process
hell by suggesting that one rfc contain both the OIDs and
"Housley, Russ" wrote:
Dear S/MIME WG Members:
This message announces Working Group Last Call for aes-keywrap. The two
authors have independently written implementations of the specification,
and the implementations interoperate. This indicates that the
specification contains the necessary detail.
Title : AES Key Wrap Algorithm
Author(s) : J. Schaad, R. Housley
Filename : draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00.txt
Date : 06-Feb-02
The intent is to publish aes-keywrap as an Informational RFC.
Please review aes-keywrap, and post any comments to the
mail list by Saturday, 23 February 2002. Unless traffic on the mail list
indicates otherwise, I will
send these to the IESG shortly after WG Last Call closes.
Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8. mailto:stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)baltimore(_dot_)ie