Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt
"Jim Schaad" <jimsch@nwlink.com> Mon, 08 March 2004 10:55 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 FAA24340 for <smime-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 05:55:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i28ATIg7059426; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:29:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i28ATIgs059425; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:29:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i28ATIXW059418 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:29:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jimsch@nwlink.com)
Received: from romans (ip237.132.dial-acs01.sea.iinet.com [209.20.132.237]) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989E58ABD7; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 02:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: jimsch@exmsft.com
From: Jim Schaad <jimsch@nwlink.com>
To: 'Blake Ramsdell' <blake@brutesquadlabs.com>
Cc: Ietf-Smime <ietf-smime@imc.org>
Subject: Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 02:34:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Thread-Index: AcQE+N9NYXOKa0Y7Qg+c04MKBYHNlg==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-Id: <20040308102917.989E58ABD7@smtp2.pacifier.net>
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
Hi Blake, 1. I just realized there is no abstract for this document. Is one required? 2. Section 2, p1: s/[CMS] provides/[CMSALG] provides/ 3. Section 1.1, p 4: Should there be a dependency/reference to CMSALG here as well? 4. Section 2.5.2, p1: Need to add text for Compression Algorithms. 5. Section 2.5.2: The following statement is no longer true (please delete): Note that all OIDs associated with the MUST and SHOULD implement algorithms are included in section A of this document. 6. section 3, p 1: s/[ESS] document provides examples/[ESS] document provides descriptions/ s/ESS provides an example of/ESS provides a description of/ 7. Section 3.1, p 5, s/implementor/implementer/ Section 3.6, p 3: ditto Section 4.1, p 2: ditto - I don't know if that is really an incorrect spelling, but MS Word does not know it. 8. Section 3.2.1, s/Application/pkcs7-signature/Application/pkcs7-signature (SignedData)/ 9. Section 3.2.2, p last: Suggest adding the text: "An smime-type parameters is not intended to give indications of security layers applied in the event of multiple levels of wrapping." 10. Section 3.4: In general, the multipart/signed form is preferred for sending, and receiving agents SHOULD be able to handle both. --- what is the MUST handle? Otherwise there is no interop. 11: Section 3.4.3.2: The text "The SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512 algorithms [FIPS180-2] are not currently supported in S/MIME, and are included here for completeness." Is only partially correct. They are supported, just not required by this document. I would like to clean this up by saying this in a tighter fashion. 12. Section 4, p 1: s/certification/certificate/ 13. Section A: s/prefered/preferred/ 14. References: CMSAES = RFC 3565 15. Section 1.1, p 4: s/the Cryptographic Message Syntax/the Cryptographic Message Syntax document/ 16. Is a specification MUST/SHOULD (section 1.1, p4) or the document (section 1.1, p3) (The same word is used, but in completely different meanings. Would not be a problem but for the MUST in p4 potentially wanting to force meaning into p3). 17. Section 2.2, p 3: s/the algorithms/the hash algorithms/ 18. Section 2.4.1, p1: s/signedData/SignedData/ - also envelopedData vs EnvelopedData and compressedData vs CompressedData. signedData does not actually exist in the CMS documents. The type is SignedData or the concept is signed data. I think we need to clean this up. Russ: Please note there is one section in CMS that needs to be cleaned up in the same way. 19. Section 2.4.1, p1: s/encryptedContentInfo ContentType/encryptedContentInfo contentType/ 20. Section 2.4.1, p1: s/in the envelopedData/in the EnvelopedData/ 21. Section 2.4.2, p1: Should add "This content type does not provide privacy." 22. Section 2.5 title, s/Attribute/Attributes and the/ 23. Section 2.5.2, p 3: s/SMIMECapabilites/SMIMECapabilities/ 24. I heard this comment at the last IETF meeting from somebody. As I have had the same problem in a number of cases (esp with doing interop matrixes) I am throwing it out for your consideration: The use of the words must, should and may in lower case causes some confusion dealing with the question of - did the author just forget to uppercase this or is it really not a protocol statement. SHOULD examine all instances of these words to see if a different word works just as well. Jim
- Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt Jim Schaad
- RE: Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt Paul Hoffman / IMC
- RE: Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt Jim Schaad
- RE: Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Comments draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-07.txt Russ Housley