As an implementor of this spec, I have not seen any requirements for
compression.
I am much keener to see the spec published "as is", than add compression
to the scope at this stage.
Graeme
Chris and Francois:
I would like to proceed with the specification "as is." If
we find that there is a lot of implementation, and those folks
need compression, then we can revisit this issue.
Russ
At 02:15 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, Bonatti, Chris wrote:
Francois,
This has not been discussed before on this list, but to
my knowledge
has there has not been a strong call for this. My view is
that this is
feasible, but presently outside the scope of the draft. Since this
doesn't constitute a MUST in the 2633bis, I'm not sure this is
significant.
I do not favor slowing down the spec for this.
Do others have opinions on this?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Francois(_dot_)Rousseau(_at_)CSE-CST(_dot_)GC(_dot_)CA
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 13:16
To: BonattiC(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Update of CMS-X.400 Drafts
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.