RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00.txt
"Jim Schaad" <jimsch@nwlink.com> Tue, 12 February 2002 21:11 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27484 for <smime-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:11:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g1CKktr15217 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:46:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1CKks315213 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from revelation ([12.230.157.165]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020212204651.XXNR2951.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@revelation>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:46:51 +0000
Reply-To: jimsch@exmsft.com
From: Jim Schaad <jimsch@nwlink.com>
To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00.txt
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:45:29 -0800
Message-ID: <001e01c1b406$35113c50$0c00a8c0@soaringhawk.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
In-Reply-To: <3C67E1EC.8726357E@baltimore.ie>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve, > > Russ, > > I'm just wondering why these two -00 drafts, which don't seem to > have much to do with the smime wg (e.g. they don't reference any > other wg document), are being processed this way. Did I sleep for > a bit at the last meeting and miss the explanation? An additional note on the aes-keywrap draft. This is a republish of a document which is currently on the NIST web site, but not in a final form. They don't expect it to be final for a while and the AES draft needs to have the key wrap document to proceed. > > My only possibly useful comment (not being able to review 48 > pages including binary samples in the time alloted) is that > it'd be nice to allocate URIs for these wrapping algorithms > as well as OIDs. Or did you expect the W3C XML Encryption > group should do that? (Hope I don't cause some sort of process > hell by suggesting that one rfc contain both the OIDs and > URIs:-). While I don't have a problem with this, I too can see the advantages, the W3C is where the URIs are being standardized. If they want to give use the URIs, I would consider including these as part of the last call comments. > > Regards, > Stephen. > Jim
- WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00.txt Housley, Russ
- Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00… Stephen Farrell
- Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00… Housley, Russ
- RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00… Jim Schaad