[Top] [All Lists]

RE: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-smime-gost-05.txt

2005-12-06 14:42:15

1.  I think that the appendix 9 should include the appropriate
public/private keys to extract and validate the messages included. 

2.  I think that the ASN.1 modules should be augmented to include a
reference to the location of imported modules not included in this document.


-----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, December 05, 2005 6:57 AM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-smime-gost-05.txt


This ID has passed WG Last Call without comment.  I will now 
forward it on to the AD.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
On Behalf Of Turner, Sean P.
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:13 PM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-smime-gost-05.txt

This message initiates an SMIME Working Group Last Call on 
the document:

      Title           : Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST
                    R 34.10-94 and GOST R 34.10-2001 algorithms
                    with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
      Author(s)       : S. Leontiev, G. Chudov
      Filename        : draft-ietf-smime-gost-05.txt
      Pages           : 25
      Date            : 2005-9-13

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:

The purpose of this WG Last Call is to ensure that the 
Working Group has achieved consensus that the document is 
suitable for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Please review the document for both technical and editorial problems.
Technical issues should be discussed on this list. Editorial 
issues may be sent to the document editor.

The Last Call period will end on Friday, December 2, 2005.

Upon completion of the last call, the WG chairs will take 
action based upon the consensus of the WG. Possible actions include:

   1) recommending to the IETF Security Area Directors
      that the document, after possible editorial or
      other minor changes, be considered by the IESG
      for publication as a Standard Track RFC
      (which generally involves an IETF-wide Last Call); or

   2) requiring that outstanding issues be adequately
      addressed prior to further action (including,
      possibly, another WG Last Call).

Remember that it is our responsibility as Working Group 
members to ensure the quality of our documents and of the 
Internet Standards process.  So, please read and comment!


PS there is a companion GOST documents in PKIX
txt) and in RFC editor's queue 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>