Steve,
Russ,
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?
An additional note on the aes-keywrap draft. This is a republish of a
document which is currently on the NIST web site, but not in a final
form. They don't expect it to be final for a while and the AES draft
needs to have the key wrap document to proceed.
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
URIs:-).
While I don't have a problem with this, I too can see the advantages,
the W3C is where the URIs are being standardized. If they want to give
use the URIs, I would consider including these as part of the last call
comments.
Regards,
Stephen.
Jim