RE: Update of CMS-X.400 Drafts

["Bonatti, Chris" <[e-mail]>]

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.