S/MIME Minutes - CMS section

[Denis Pinkas <[e-mail]>]

John,

I only got the time to look at the minutes yesterday and observed
a difference between what happened during the meeting and what is
written.

In the section about CMS, it is said:

" Russ asked if there were any other unresolved issued regarding
CMS. Denis Pinkas stated that he believes that CMS should specify
how key validation is performed.  He is especially concerned with
the case in which multiple Certification Authority (CA)
certificates contain the same public key.  A vast majority of the
meeting attendees decided that the PKIX X.509 Certificate and CRL
Profile (RFC2459) (referred to by the CERT I-D) specifies how key
validation is performed and that CMS should not replicate that
information."

On that point, during the session Russ said that he was willing
to incorporate additional text in the security consideration
section that I had provided to him to address this concern. I did
not commented on this and no one else. There was no strawpol
either on this issue.

A more correct formulation should be:

"Russ said Denis Pinkas had been asking for some addditional text
to explain how the right public key to perform the verification
of the signature was obtained in section 5.6. Denis Pinkas had
provided to Russ some text for additional materail to the
security consideration section and a pointer to it in the section
5.6. Russ said he would incoporate the new text in the next
draft. "

Note that this has nothing to do with how key validation is
performed, which is indeed explained in the PKIX X.509
Certificate and CRL Profile (RFC2459) (referred to by the CERT
I-D), so it does not duplicate any text.

After the meeting Russ sent me privately an E-mail to say that he
finally founded the text too big and instead proposed me to
change some text of the section 5.6. I replied that this was
acceptable (although I would have prefered the first way).

Now when looking at the document (cms-12) I find the text
unchanged.

I would like that we correct the minutes, if possible, but what I
care much more is the content of CMS. I am still requesting
changes to CMS section 5.6. one way or the other to address this
issue. Russ ?

Regards,

Denis