Hi Chris,
I am very sorry to not have noticed this before, but I did not see any
mention of optionally supporting Compression (i.e. RFC3274) under WRAP like
under MSGbis. Isn't compression something that could also be useful for
X.400 content? Was this intentional?
Cheers,
Francois
-----Original Message-----
From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 11:32 AM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Update of CMS-X.400 Drafts
With Paul and Anders help, I have addressed some outstanding IESG (or
AD) comments that I did not hear of until after the Vienna meeting. The
comments and their resolution are included below. I also updated WRAP
so that it includes a specification of AES key sizes in alignment with
the -05 issue of MSGbis. This latter issue was mentioned in my status
report in Vienna.
So you should look for an -08 issue of WRAP and an -09 issue of
TRANSPORT in the Internet-Drafts directory in short order (posted Friday
AM).
Cheers!
Chris
______WRAP COMMENTS________
3.2----->"whatever gateway system that is bridging" seems grammatically
wrong.
Replaced with "any gateway system that might bridge the gap".
3.2.1---->"since it is out" should be "since it is outside"?
Done.
3.3----->"If other binary transport" should "If another binary"?
Replaced with "If other transport (e.g., X.400) that is optimized for
binary content". I think that's clearer.
3.3.1------> "it is out" again, outside?
Done.
3.4.1---> "7-bit transport, is optional" spurious comma.
Done.
3.4.1--->"certs-only, which is only for signed)" seems to be missing a
noun.
Replaced with "certs-only, which applies only to signed-only messages)".
______TRANSPORT COMMENTS________
2.6.1--->"because those type do not" has subject/verb agreeement
problem.
Changed "type" to "types".
2.6.2-----> "A RecipeintInfo" should be "RecipientInfo".
Done.