I've a question.
To sample this, I opened one of the files in the attachment
(TD1275) which seems to both reproduce a lot of CMS RFC text
and to extend that without (I guess?) having asked anyone who
implements CMS. If that is the case, that'd seem really dumb.
I don't recall any relevant liaison nor have I heard of such
work being wanted.
My question is: am I being unfair in the above or are the
authors of that actually in touch with folks who implement
Other folks - if you care about ITU-T work that could overlap
with IETF work or with your code, you might want to take a
look here. (Or decide to just ignore the whole thing as
irrelevant enough to be harmless I guess.)
On 17/09/14 18:05, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
For those interested in what is occurring over the
next few days in Geneva related to these subjects
in the all but extinct ITU-T group, the relevant
documents are pulled together here. The "challenges"
material tends to be used to justify new work in
the group. It's worth being aware of. An operative
question is whether anyone cares.
Approval Certified Mail Transport and Certified Post Office Protocol
Approval Current and new challenges for public key infrastructure
standardization within ITU-T TD 1179
NWI Proposal for including whitelist support in Rec. ITU-T X.509 |
ISO/IEC 9594-8 C 268
NWI Proposal for new ITU-T | ISO/IEC JTC 1 joint work item for OID
based device identifier for the Internet of Things C 239
NWI Proposal for including relevant cryptographic algorithm
information into Annex B of Rec. ITU-T X.509 | ISO/IEC 9594-8. C 230
NWI Proposal for additional restructuring and updates of Rec. ITU-T
X.509 | ISO/IEC 9594-8 C 269
pkix mailing list
smime mailing list