I have just submitted a new draft 03 which includes resolutions to all
WG last call issues on the S/MIME capability extension document.
The only comments recorded were the comments submitted by Jim Schaad.
The resolutions to Jim's issues are summarized in-line below.
The new draft will hopefully surface in the course of a few days.
Microsoft Security Center of Excellence (SCOE)
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf(_at_)augustcellars(_dot_)com]
Sent: den 14 december 2004 00:01
To: Stefan Santesson
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-certcapa-02.txt
A couple of small comments on the draft, although I believe that it
to last call in its current state.
1. In section 2 you have the statement 'Algorithms should be ordered
preference.' As I general rule I attempt to avoid the use of must,
and may when writing documents to avoid confusion with MUST, SHOULD
(did he just forget to capatilize it?). A better statement might be
'Algorithms are expected to be be ordered by preference'.
[Stefan] Resolution: I removed this statement and replaced it with a
clarification to the fact that all requirements and recommendations
concerning information content, stated in RFC 3851, apply to this spec
2. I would like to see the addition of a paragraph describing the
capabilities that are expected to be listed. It seems obious that
encryption algorithms are listed as, potentially, are key encryption
algorithms (consider RSA-OAEP as an example). However it is not clear
some of the other potential capabililties. What about signature and
algorithms? What about MAC algorithms? What about S/MIME specifics
[Stefan] Resolution: New text added after the ASN.1 section stating that
the attribute and this extension are expected to hold the same type of
3. RFC 2199 is a reference, but the text refering to it is absent.
[Stefan] Resolution: I added this text in a new section 1.1
4. RFC 3280 is referenced only from the abstract. Duplicate text
placed in section 1.
[Stefan] Resolution: This is done right at the beginning of section 1.