Jim,
To fix this, one would have to make an alignment edit at the next OIW.
The correct text would probably be: "The normative references are the
series of RFCs on Privacy Enhanced Mail. The basis for these RFCs is
found in RFC 1113, 1114, 1115. These have been updated to RFC 1421, 1422,
1423, and 1424. "
If the ASN.1 definition has not changed and the message has not changed,
the OID may not have to be changed. Especially if the changes are only
in the areas of security mechanisms. If parsing the message has changed,
I would think that it is a different body part and needs a new OID.
Will there be any problems in parsing the old messages or did the message
remain and the security mechanisms change? If it is only the latter there
might not be a problem. Otherwise we will need a new OID. Which would also
mean looking at impact on current implementations, allowing a transition
period to roll to the new OID with a date when all implementations will
be updated. This has happened in the past with other applications (FTAM)
and the whole OIW Plenary will have to approve rolling to a new OID.
Eva
Since all that X.400 does is transport the already created PEM
message, it makes sense that the normative references for the
message are still the RFCs.
> The informative Annex references RFCs 1113, 1114, and 1115, though.
You are correct, of course. I was just observing that the reference is
to the old RFCs as opposed to RFCs 1421, 1422, 1423, and 1424.
I'm not sure what's involved in fixing this, since backward
compatibility is an issue. What do you think?
Jim