I'm still waiting to hear if there is anybody in the WG that is going to
review this draft?
spt
-----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 Turner,
Sean P.
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:39 AM
To: 'S-MIME / IETF'
Cc: 'pkix'
Subject: RE: CMS Advanced Electronic Signatures (CAdES)
The question at hand is someone in the working group willing
to review this ID?
spt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-pkix(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-pkix(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Denis
Pinkas
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:20 AM
To: S-MIME / IETF
Cc: pkix
Subject: CMS Advanced Electronic Signatures (CAdES)
To the S-MIME list,
Copy: the PKIX list.
RFC 3126 has been issued in September 2001 and its title is:
"Electronic Signature Format for long term electronic signatures"
The contents of this Informational RFC is technically
equivalent to ETSI TS
101 733 V.1.2.2.
In the mean time, ETSI TC ESI has revised this Technical
Standard (TS) and is going to publish a new version of it
with a new title :
CMS Advanced Electronic Signatures (CAdES), in order to be
the "brother" of XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (XAdES),
published as ETSI TS 101 903.
In order to make this document widely available, ETSI has
produced an equivalent of the revised TS using the format of a RFC.
This document is temporarily available (by a kind hosting
from Paul Offman)
from:
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/TEMP-draft-pinkas-smime-cades-00.txt>
until is is officially posted in the IETF repository.
The major changes are mentioned section J :
"The title of the document has changed to be aligned with the title
of XAdES, the vocabulary used within the present document has been
aligned with the vocabulary used in XAdES,
In the previous version of TS 101 733 (i.e. version 1.5.1)
sigPolicyHash was mandatory. Implementations requiring to be
backward compatible with version 1.5.1 and previous versions
of the current document MUST include SigPolicyHash.
The OIDs from the ASN.1 modules have changed for the following
reasons:
- the OIDs of the ASN.1 modules of RFC 2560 and RFC 3161 have been
included.
- since RFC 2459 and RFC 3369 has been obsoleted by RFC 3280 and
RFC 3852 respectively, there was the need to refer to the OIDs
of the ASN.1 modules of RFC 3280 and RFC 3852, instead of the
OIDs of the ASN.1 modules of RFC 2459 and RFC 3369.
- the other change is related to the field sigPolicyHash from
SignaturePolicyId (see clause 5.8.1). That field was mandatory
and is now optional."
It is proposed to progress this document within the S-MIME WG
as an Informational Standard.
Denis