IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com> Wed, 17 March 1999 06:06 UTC

Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20209 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:06:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id VAA15701 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns2.walltech.com (ns2.walltech.com [208.195.156.18]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA15694 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from iris (user47.sj.dialup.innetix.com [209.172.68.110]) by ns2.walltech.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/walltech-1.28h) with SMTP id VAA01258; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990316212454.007bd100@pop.walltech.com>
X-Sender: bgreenblatt@pop.walltech.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:24:54 -0800
To: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
From: Bruce Greenblatt <bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com>
Subject: Re: More on KEKIdentifiers, and a suggested addition to CMS
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990317000628.009dc750@mail.spyrus.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990316094910.007baa30@pop.walltech.com> <4.1.19990313171127.009d8cc0@mail.spyrus.com> <4.2.0.29.19990311134917.0096df00@mail.imc.org> <00e901be6c2a$ded01e40$0400000a@jrwork>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

At 12:07 AM 3/17/99 -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
>No.  The current document meets all of the original requirements.  We are
>considering an enhancement that is beyond the original charter.
>
>Russ
>

Thanks for the clarification.  As long as the enhancement to the protocol
doesn't "break" conformant implementations, I think that you and Paul are
right that the process won't be held up.  I thought that I read that an
extension mechanism was going to be put in between PS and DS that would
change the protocol in such a way that implementations that conformed to
the PS version of CMS might get confused by the DS version of the protocol.
 Obviously, this would be a bad thing.

Bruce
================================================
Bruce Greenblatt             
bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com
http://www.directory-applications.com
================================================

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status