Stefan,
A couple of small comments on the draft, although I believe that it could go
to last call in its current state.
1. In section 2 you have the statement 'Algorithms should be ordered by
preference.' As I general rule I attempt to avoid the use of must, should
and may when writing documents to avoid confusion with MUST, SHOULD and MAY
(did he just forget to capatilize it?). A better statement might be
'Algorithms are expected to be be ordered by preference'.
2. I would like to see the addition of a paragraph describing the types of
capabilities that are expected to be listed. It seems obious that bulk
encryption algorithms are listed as, potentially, are key encryption
algorithms (consider RSA-OAEP as an example). However it is not clear about
some of the other potential capabililties. What about signature and hash
algorithms? What about MAC algorithms? What about S/MIME specifics such as
id-cap-preferBinaryInside?
3. RFC 2199 is a reference, but the text refering to it is absent.
4. RFC 3280 is referenced only from the abstract. Duplicate text should be
placed in section 1.
jim