From: Jim Schaad [mailto:jimsch(_at_)nwlink(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:50 PM
To: 'Blake Ramsdell'; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-smime-rfc2632bis-05.txt
1. Do we need to review the RSA key sizes on certificate
4096 is soon to be a common key size I think and should be
don't know that 512 should not be dropped from MUST to SHOULD.
I'm not feeling this one on the 4096 end. I'm leaving it alone for now.
If anyone feels strongly, speak up.
On the 512 end... I think making implementations support 512 is fine.
2. I just noticed that 188.8.131.52 does not have a corresponding
RSA. In point of fact this may now be in CMSALG and
therefore not needed.
(i.e. remove 184.108.40.206)
Agreed -- this is covered in [KEYMALG]. Removed.