RE: Update of CMS-X.400 Drafts

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Chris and Francois:

I would like to proceed with the specification "as is."  If we find that 
there is a lot of implementation, and those folks need compression, then we 
can revisit this issue.

Russ

At 02:15 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, Bonatti, Chris wrote:

>Francois,
>
>   This has not been discussed before on this list, but to my
>knowledge has there has not been a strong call for this.  My view
>is that this is feasible, but presently outside the scope of the
>draft.  Since this doesn't constitute a MUST in the 2633bis, I'm
>not sure this is significant.
>
>   I do not favor slowing down the spec for this.
>
>   Do others have opinions on this?
>
>Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail]
>[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>[e-mail]
>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 13:16
>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: Update of CMS-X.400 Drafts
>
>
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>I am very sorry to not have noticed this before, but I did not
>see any mention of optionally supporting Compression (i.e.
>RFC3274) under WRAP like under MSGbis.  Isn't compression
>something that could also be useful for X.400 content?  Was this
>intentional?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Francois
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 11:32 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Update of CMS-X.400 Drafts
>
>
>
>With Paul and Anders help, I have addressed some outstanding IESG
>(or
>AD) comments that I did not hear of until after the Vienna
>meeting.  The comments and their resolution are included below.
>I also updated WRAP so that it includes a specification of AES
>key sizes in alignment with the -05 issue of MSGbis.  This latter
>issue was mentioned in my status report in Vienna.
>
>So you should look for an -08 issue of WRAP and an -09 issue of
>TRANSPORT in the Internet-Drafts directory in short order (posted
>Friday AM).
>
>Cheers!
>Chris
>
>
>______WRAP COMMENTS________
>
>3.2----->"whatever gateway system that is bridging" seems
>grammatically wrong.
>
>Replaced with "any gateway system that might bridge the gap".
>
>
>3.2.1---->"since it is out" should be "since it is outside"?
>
>Done.
>
>
>3.3----->"If other binary transport" should "If another binary"?
>
>Replaced with "If other transport (e.g., X.400) that is optimized
>for binary content".  I think that's clearer.
>
>
>3.3.1------> "it is out" again, outside?
>
>Done.
>
>
>3.4.1---> "7-bit transport, is optional" spurious comma.
>
>Done.
>
>
>3.4.1--->"certs-only, which is only for signed)" seems to be
>missing a noun.
>
>Replaced with "certs-only, which applies only to signed-only
>messages)".
>
>
>
>______TRANSPORT COMMENTS________
>
>2.6.1--->"because those type do not" has subject/verb agreeement
>problem.
>
>Changed "type" to "types".
>
>
>2.6.2-----> "A RecipeintInfo" should be "RecipientInfo".
>
>Done.