Re: More on KEKIdentifiers, and a suggested addition to CMS

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

No.  The current document meets all of the original requirements.  We are
considering an enhancement that is beyond the original charter.

Russ

At 09:49 AM 3/16/99 -0800, Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
>At 05:22 PM 3/13/99 -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
>>All:
>>
>>I agree with Paul Hoffman.  We should proceed with CMS so that the S/MIME
>>v3 set of documents can become Proposed Standards.  Using the list, we can
>>discuss the best way to handle password-based key management.  We can do as
>>many Internet-Drafts as necessary to sort this out.  Once we reach
>>concensus, we can add the that technique to CMS when the document
>>progresses from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.
>>
>
>I have a question about this.  Are you producing a document with a known
>deficiency that you intend to correct later in the standards process?  It
>appears to me that making the change that has been suggested using the
>extension mechanism after it has been released as PS would likely cause CMS
>to move backwards in the standards process, and not forwards.  Thus, the
>whole process would be substantially delayed.  You're better off correcting
>the problem now with the "..." or extension mechanism or whatever as part
>of WG last call, and moving on rather than attempting to correct it later,
>and then being shifted back in the standardization process...
>
>Bruce
>================================================
>Bruce Greenblatt             
>[e-mail]
>http://www.directory-applications.com
>================================================