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.
Jim
-----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
All,
This ID has passed WG Last Call without comment. I will now
forward it on to the AD.
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: 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:
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-gost-05.txt
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!
Spt
PS there is a companion GOST documents in PKIX
(http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-gost-cppk-03.
txt) and in RFC editor's queue
(ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-popov-cryptopro-cpalg
s-04.txt).