RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport
"Blake Ramsdell" <blaker@tumbleweed.com> Wed, 28 February 2001 21:10 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA25721 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:10:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26147 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cane.deming.com (mail.deming.com [208.236.41.137]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26141 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 208.236.41.137 by cane.deming.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:21 -0800
X-Server-Uuid: 1a012586-24e9-11d1-adae-00a024bc53c5
Received: by cane.deming.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <CXGVMSZ1>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:21 -0800
Message-ID: <01FF24001403D011AD7B00A024BC53C5A77AAA@cane.deming.com>
From: Blake Ramsdell <blaker@tumbleweed.com>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@spyrus.com>, William Ottaway <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk>
cc: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com>, jimsch@exmsft.com, ietf-smime@imc.org
Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
X-WSS-ID: 1683BECF46671-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Section 3.6 currently reads (sorry if it wraps) > 3.6 Creating a Certificates-only Message > > The certificates only message or MIME entity is used to transport > certificates, such as in response to a registration request. This > format can also be used to convey CRLs. > > Step 1. The certificates are made available to the CMS generating > process which creates a CMS object of type signedData. The signedData > encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent and signerInfos field > MUST be empty. > > Step 2. The CMS signedData object is enclosed in an > application/pkcs7-mime MIME entity > > The smime-type parameter for a certs-only message is "certs-only". > The file extension for this type of message is ".p7c". These steps are valid for sending CRLs also, if that is ambiguous. Step 1 can be modified to read "The certificates and/or CRLs". Pushing CRLs through a CMS message is a valid idea (at least I think so), and in fact we do it for our own product (we chase down CRLs and package thm in CMS messages). Blake -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@spyrus.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:57 AM To: William Ottaway Cc: Bonatti, Chris; jimsch@exmsft.com; ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport I was not part of the S/MIME v2 discussions that lead to the current format. I have asked Blake to chime in, and I hope that he does. The scenario of interest is a CA returning a certificate in response to the PKCS#10 request. Here, the CA could choose to include the current CRLs in the "cert-only" message. This would seed the newly-enrolled user's CRL cache. I am not aware of any CA pushing CRLs to their subscribers in an S/MIME message. It could certainly be done.... Russ At 04:30 PM 2/26/2001 +0000, William Ottaway wrote: >Chris, > >I'm happy for the text to indicate that the format described for a certs >only message could be used to transport CRLs or both, as long as the text >also states that if CRLs or both are being transported the OID for certs >only MUST not be used. > >Do we have consensus :-) > >Bill. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > > Sent: 26 February 2001 16:10 > > To: William Ottaway > > Cc: jimsch@exmsft.com; ietf-smime@imc.org > > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > Bill, > > > > Okay, how about option (3) ;-) > > > > (3) would be we clarify the text, but describe more clearly > > what I think was > > the intent of RFC 2633. Namely, that the format described and > > identified as > > "certs-only" can be used to convey either certs, CRLs or both. > > > > Btw, I would happily go along with either (1) or (2) if the > > corresponding > > change were made to the MSG spec. I guess I still favor (3) > > however, because I > > perceive it to be the status quo, and because allowing CRLs to be > > included here > > doesn't seem to break anything for the PKCS #10 scenario. I'd be > > hard pressed > > to cite the benefits, though. Does anybody remember the logic > > for why this was > > done? > > > > Chris > > > > > > _______________________ > > > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > I think I'm inferring what is done. :-) > > > > > > My only gripe is I don't like the statement "This format can > > also be used to > > > convey CRLs." followed by a description of how to carry > > certificates but no > > > description of how to carry CRLs in a similar format. > > > > > > Its too late to change RFC 2633 but draft-ietf-smime-x400trans could say > > > something different. > > > > > > 1) Don't mention that CRLs can be carried in a similar way to a > > certs only > > > message > > > > > > or > > > > > > 2) Specify an OID for a CRL only message. > > > > > > Bill. > > > > > Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26147 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from cane.deming.com (mail.deming.com [208.236.41.137]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26141 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from 208.236.41.137 by cane.deming.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:21 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 1a012586-24e9-11d1-adae-00a024bc53c5 Received: by cane.deming.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <CXGVMSZ1>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:21 -0800 Message-ID: <01FF24001403D011AD7B00A024BC53C5A77AAA@cane.deming.com> From: "Blake Ramsdell" <blaker@tumbleweed.com> To: "'Russ Housley'" <housley@spyrus.com>, "William Ottaway" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> cc: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com>, jimsch@exmsft.com, ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:36:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-WSS-ID: 1683BECF46671-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Section 3.6 currently reads (sorry if it wraps) > 3.6 Creating a Certificates-only Message > > The certificates only message or MIME entity is used to transport > certificates, such as in response to a registration request. This > format can also be used to convey CRLs. > > Step 1. The certificates are made available to the CMS generating > process which creates a CMS object of type signedData. The signedData > encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent and signerInfos field > MUST be empty. > > Step 2. The CMS signedData object is enclosed in an > application/pkcs7-mime MIME entity > > The smime-type parameter for a certs-only message is "certs-only". > The file extension for this type of message is ".p7c". These steps are valid for sending CRLs also, if that is ambiguous. Step 1 can be modified to read "The certificates and/or CRLs". Pushing CRLs through a CMS message is a valid idea (at least I think so), and in fact we do it for our own product (we chase down CRLs and package thm in CMS messages). Blake -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@spyrus.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:57 AM To: William Ottaway Cc: Bonatti, Chris; jimsch@exmsft.com; ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport I was not part of the S/MIME v2 discussions that lead to the current format. I have asked Blake to chime in, and I hope that he does. The scenario of interest is a CA returning a certificate in response to the PKCS#10 request. Here, the CA could choose to include the current CRLs in the "cert-only" message. This would seed the newly-enrolled user's CRL cache. I am not aware of any CA pushing CRLs to their subscribers in an S/MIME message. It could certainly be done.... Russ At 04:30 PM 2/26/2001 +0000, William Ottaway wrote: >Chris, > >I'm happy for the text to indicate that the format described for a certs >only message could be used to transport CRLs or both, as long as the text >also states that if CRLs or both are being transported the OID for certs >only MUST not be used. > >Do we have consensus :-) > >Bill. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > > Sent: 26 February 2001 16:10 > > To: William Ottaway > > Cc: jimsch@exmsft.com; ietf-smime@imc.org > > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > Bill, > > > > Okay, how about option (3) ;-) > > > > (3) would be we clarify the text, but describe more clearly > > what I think was > > the intent of RFC 2633. Namely, that the format described and > > identified as > > "certs-only" can be used to convey either certs, CRLs or both. > > > > Btw, I would happily go along with either (1) or (2) if the > > corresponding > > change were made to the MSG spec. I guess I still favor (3) > > however, because I > > perceive it to be the status quo, and because allowing CRLs to be > > included here > > doesn't seem to break anything for the PKCS #10 scenario. I'd be > > hard pressed > > to cite the benefits, though. Does anybody remember the logic > > for why this was > > done? > > > > Chris > > > > > > _______________________ > > > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > I think I'm inferring what is done. :-) > > > > > > My only gripe is I don't like the statement "This format can > > also be used to > > > convey CRLs." followed by a description of how to carry > > certificates but no > > > description of how to carry CRLs in a similar format. > > > > > > Its too late to change RFC 2633 but draft-ietf-smime-x400trans could say > > > something different. > > > > > > 1) Don't mention that CRLs can be carried in a similar way to a > > certs only > > > message > > > > > > or > > > > > > 2) Specify an OID for a CRL only message. > > > > > > Bill. > > > > > Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA00672 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA00665 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from RHOUSLEY-PC.spyrus.com (dial08.spyrus.com [207.212.34.128]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19858; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010228085027.0399a768@mail.spyrus.com> X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:57:10 -0500 To: "William Ottaway" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Cc: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com>, <jimsch@exmsft.com>, <ietf-smime@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHGEKEDMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> References: <3A9A7FC6.FDD7F727@ieca.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> I was not part of the S/MIME v2 discussions that lead to the current format. I have asked Blake to chime in, and I hope that he does. The scenario of interest is a CA returning a certificate in response to the PKCS#10 request. Here, the CA could choose to include the current CRLs in the "cert-only" message. This would seed the newly-enrolled user's CRL cache. I am not aware of any CA pushing CRLs to their subscribers in an S/MIME message. It could certainly be done.... Russ At 04:30 PM 2/26/2001 +0000, William Ottaway wrote: >Chris, > >I'm happy for the text to indicate that the format described for a certs >only message could be used to transport CRLs or both, as long as the text >also states that if CRLs or both are being transported the OID for certs >only MUST not be used. > >Do we have consensus :-) > >Bill. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > > Sent: 26 February 2001 16:10 > > To: William Ottaway > > Cc: jimsch@exmsft.com; ietf-smime@imc.org > > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > Bill, > > > > Okay, how about option (3) ;-) > > > > (3) would be we clarify the text, but describe more clearly > > what I think was > > the intent of RFC 2633. Namely, that the format described and > > identified as > > "certs-only" can be used to convey either certs, CRLs or both. > > > > Btw, I would happily go along with either (1) or (2) if the > > corresponding > > change were made to the MSG spec. I guess I still favor (3) > > however, because I > > perceive it to be the status quo, and because allowing CRLs to be > > included here > > doesn't seem to break anything for the PKCS #10 scenario. I'd be > > hard pressed > > to cite the benefits, though. Does anybody remember the logic > > for why this was > > done? > > > > Chris > > > > > > _______________________ > > > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > I think I'm inferring what is done. :-) > > > > > > My only gripe is I don't like the statement "This format can > > also be used to > > > convey CRLs." followed by a description of how to carry > > certificates but no > > > description of how to carry CRLs in a similar format. > > > > > > Its too late to change RFC 2633 but draft-ietf-smime-x400trans could say > > > something different. > > > > > > 1) Don't mention that CRLs can be carried in a similar way to a > > certs only > > > message > > > > > > or > > > > > > 2) Specify an OID for a CRL only message. > > > > > > Bill. > > > > > Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18096 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:27:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18085 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:27:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id LAA07756; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:27:46 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma005370; Tue, 27 Feb 01 11:21:56 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (bobcat.ie.baltimore.com) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51fc0a49890a991935131@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:21:23 +0000 Received: from baltimore.ie (ip187-24.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.24.187]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01901; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:21:55 GMT Message-ID: <3A9B8DD2.560BB367@baltimore.ie> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:21:54 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Reply-To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jimsch@exmsft.com CC: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt References: <000401c0a04c$60c7f650$1500a8c0@soaringhawk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Hi Jim, [...] > What I > would like to see is a discussion of when a protocal should use the proposed > method rather than one of the above suggested methods. Ok - how about adding this to section 2: "There are other ways that could be envisaged to establish the required symmetric keying material, e.g. by leveraging a group keying scheme or by defining a content type that contains a KEK value. Although this scheme is much simpler than generic group key management, if an implementation already supports group key management then this scheme doesn't add value. This scheme is also suitable for inclusion in CMS libraries (though the addition of new state might be a problem for some implementations), which can offer some advantages over application layer (e.g. where the content includes the KEK) schemes." Definitely needs wordsmithing, but is that the type of thing you mean? > > > 5. Section 3. What is the default value of CEKMaxDecrypts > > if it is not > > > present. > The two values that I though of immeadately are either 1 or inifinite. Of > the two I would probably go with 1 and insist that you do continous > chaining. One is fine then. Will add. > > > 6. Section 4. First, the CE algorithm and the KE [...] > > I would like to see the phrase "using the same underlying cryptographic > operation" added somehow. I could argue that MARS and AES use the same > format and size of keying material and they are of similar strength. Do you > want to be using the byte swapping this case as well? Fair point. Will add that. > > > > 9. Appendix A. --<<IMPLICIT??>>-- should be removed or fixed > > > > Well, which do you prefer in this case? I'm not sure. > > For your module it makes absolute no difference as there is no tagging > contained in the module. Phew! (I just hate tags:-) > > > 12. Please add comments to the effect of what goes into > > each of the fields > > > and that there is an association between the pairs as OID > > attribute value. [...] > I don't expect that the ASN.1 module will stay with the i-d. I often take > out the modules and save them on their own. It is useful to be able to scan > the ASN when I am decoding messages without having to resort to reading the > entire draft. Well...I agree its somewhat useful, but I also think its marginal and in the worst case misleading (too abbreviated). However, since its not worth getting hung up about this, I'll add comments like those in CMS. Stephen. -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.com Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11222 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:30:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.83]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11218 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:30:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from revelation ([65.4.166.11]) by femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010226232831.XLEB11050.femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com@revelation>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:28:31 -0800 Reply-To: <jimsch@exmsft.com> From: "Jim Schaad" <jimsch5@home.com> To: <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Cc: <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:32:24 -0800 Message-ID: <000401c0a04c$60c7f650$1500a8c0@soaringhawk.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3A9A268B.1F0AD21B@baltimore.ie> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 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> Stephen, > > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > > 1. I would like to see a section added to section 2 to > describe why this > > "trick" is being used rather than just establishing a > short-term kek value > > which is used for a time period and then tossed. I.e. When > do you use this > > trick and when do you establish a multi-use kek value. > > Not clear to me - "establishing a short-term kek value" how? > If you mean > I should say that you could do this trick or use out-of-band > mechanisms to > establish a kek, fine. Otherwise, I'm not sure what text you'd like. > One simple way to do this is to use the GLKey control from the symmetric key distribution draft. This allows for a standard way to distribute a KEK key which could be used for a short time. Alternatively the protocal that is using this draft could in turn define a first message that distributes the KEK value and then uses that for some set of subsequent messages. What I would like to see is a discussion of when a protocal should use the proposed method rather than one of the above suggested methods. > > 5. Section 3. What is the default value of CEKMaxDecrypts > if it is not > > present. > > Given that its a hint, that's implementation specific and so > there's no > generic default. If folks wanted one, I'd go with 10, but I > think we can > omit this. The two values that I though of immeadately are either 1 or inifinite. Of the two I would probably go with 1 and insist that you do continous chaining. > > > 6. Section 4. First, the CE algorithm and the KE > algorithm are never "the > > same" in some sense. id-alg-CMS3DESwrap and des-ede3-cbc > are different in a > > number of significant ways. Please change the text. I > would suggest > > something along "If the CE algorithm and KE algorithm use > the same key > > material...". I have problems with even this because of > the question of a > > CEK of 128-bit RC2 and a KEK of 40-bit RC2 in which case it > is not clear > > that this is the algorithm one should be using. > > No problem adding text clarifying what "same" means here. How about: > > "Note: In some sense, the CEK and KEK algorithms are never the "same", > e.g. id-alg-CMS3DESwrap and des-ede3-cbc differ. However, for the > purposes of this specification, all we care about is that the > algorithms > use the same format and size of keying material (see also security > considerations) and that they do not differ significantly in terms > of the resulting cryptographic "strength". In that sense the two > algorithms in the example above are the "same."" > > > The best overall approach might be to say that if the KEK > is A and the CEK > > is B then you use the byte-reveral method and just the list > ones that > > "match" in impedance. > > I'd really rather not be listing pairs of algorithms in this document. > Would the addition of the text above be sufficient? I would like to see the phrase "using the same underlying cryptographic operation" added somehow. I could argue that MARS and AES use the same format and size of keying material and they are of similar strength. Do you want to be using the byte swapping this case as well? > > 9. Appendix A. --<<IMPLICIT??>>-- should be removed or fixed > > Well, which do you prefer in this case? I'm not sure. For your module it makes absolute no difference as there is no tagging contained in the module. > > > > 12. Please add comments to the effect of what goes into > each of the fields > > and that there is an association between the pairs as OID > attribute value. > > Huh? You mean in the ASN.1 module? I think in a 7 page i-d, the reader > is expected to read more than just the ASN.1 module. I don't expect that the ASN.1 module will stay with the i-d. I often take out the modules and save them on their own. It is useful to be able to scan the ASN when I am decoding messages without having to resort to reading the entire draft. > > Stephen. > > jim Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29467 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:25:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.eris.dera.gov.uk (ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk [128.98.1.1]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA29456 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23167 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 16:25:33 -0000 Received: from cray.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk) (128.98.2.7) by ens0.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 16:25:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 5833 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 16:25:31 -0000 Received: from wottaway.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO wottaway) (128.98.10.192) by mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 16:25:31 -0000 From: "William Ottaway" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> To: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Cc: <jimsch@exmsft.com>, <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:30:19 -0000 Message-ID: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHGEKEDMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3A9A7FC6.FDD7F727@ieca.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 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> Chris, I'm happy for the text to indicate that the format described for a certs only message could be used to transport CRLs or both, as long as the text also states that if CRLs or both are being transported the OID for certs only MUST not be used. Do we have consensus :-) Bill. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > Sent: 26 February 2001 16:10 > To: William Ottaway > Cc: jimsch@exmsft.com; ietf-smime@imc.org > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > Bill, > > Okay, how about option (3) ;-) > > (3) would be we clarify the text, but describe more clearly > what I think was > the intent of RFC 2633. Namely, that the format described and > identified as > "certs-only" can be used to convey either certs, CRLs or both. > > Btw, I would happily go along with either (1) or (2) if the > corresponding > change were made to the MSG spec. I guess I still favor (3) > however, because I > perceive it to be the status quo, and because allowing CRLs to be > included here > doesn't seem to break anything for the PKCS #10 scenario. I'd be > hard pressed > to cite the benefits, though. Does anybody remember the logic > for why this was > done? > > Chris > > > _______________________ > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > Jim, > > > > I think I'm inferring what is done. :-) > > > > My only gripe is I don't like the statement "This format can > also be used to > > convey CRLs." followed by a description of how to carry > certificates but no > > description of how to carry CRLs in a similar format. > > > > Its too late to change RFC 2633 but draft-ietf-smime-x400trans could say > > something different. > > > > 1) Don't mention that CRLs can be carried in a similar way to a > certs only > > message > > > > or > > > > 2) Specify an OID for a CRL only message. > > > > Bill. > > > Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29044 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:10:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-a.capu.net (IDENT:0@[205.177.76.122]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29037 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:10:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ieca.com (dial-216-33.capu.net [64.50.216.33]) by smtp-a.capu.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19561; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:09:47 -0500 Message-ID: <3A9A7FC6.FDD7F727@ieca.com> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:09:42 -0500 From: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Organization: IECA, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Ottaway <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> CC: jimsch@exmsft.com, ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport References: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHEEJIDMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Bill, Okay, how about option (3) ;-) (3) would be we clarify the text, but describe more clearly what I think was the intent of RFC 2633. Namely, that the format described and identified as "certs-only" can be used to convey either certs, CRLs or both. Btw, I would happily go along with either (1) or (2) if the corresponding change were made to the MSG spec. I guess I still favor (3) however, because I perceive it to be the status quo, and because allowing CRLs to be included here doesn't seem to break anything for the PKCS #10 scenario. I'd be hard pressed to cite the benefits, though. Does anybody remember the logic for why this was done? Chris _______________________ William Ottaway wrote: > Jim, > > I think I'm inferring what is done. :-) > > My only gripe is I don't like the statement "This format can also be used to > convey CRLs." followed by a description of how to carry certificates but no > description of how to carry CRLs in a similar format. > > Its too late to change RFC 2633 but draft-ietf-smime-x400trans could say > something different. > > 1) Don't mention that CRLs can be carried in a similar way to a certs only > message > > or > > 2) Specify an OID for a CRL only message. > > Bill. > Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19123 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 04:57:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.netreach.net (fatuka.netreach.net [207.29.195.121]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA19107 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 04:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19566 invoked by uid 102); 26 Feb 2001 12:58:29 -0000 Received: from static-cc.netreach.net (HELO delbert) (207.29.201.235) by smtp.netreach.net with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 12:58:29 -0000 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010226074418.009cf990@mail2.netreach.net> X-Sender: programs@corecom.com@mail2.netreach.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:57:10 -0500 To: ietf-smime@imc.org From: TISC Programs <programs@corecom.com> Subject: The Internet Security Conference 2001 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> The Fifth Internet Security Conference will be held June 4-8, 2001 at the Century Plaza Hotel and Tower, 2025 Avenue of the Stars, Century City Los Angeles, CA 90067-4696. TISC is an educational forum for security professionals and practitioners. TISC Workshops on network security principles, Windows 2000 security, firewall practices, incident response, security systems for the Internet, attack trends and countermeasures, VPNs, and hacking are presented by leading experts in the security community. In addition, over 50 security experts will offer technical advice and present invited papers during the TISC Security Symposium. Topics include Anti-Hacking, IDS, VPNs, Authentication and PKI, web security and privacy, network forensics, LINUX security, wireless security, malware, web threats, and more. View the complete agenda at http://www.tisc2001.com/agenda.html We hope to see you in Los Angeles! The TISC 2001 Program Committee www.tisc2001.com Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26540 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:50:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26535 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:50:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id JAA05662; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:50:18 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma005552; Mon, 26 Feb 01 09:49:27 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (bobcat.ie.baltimore.com) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51f68f45d80a991935131@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:48:55 +0000 Received: from baltimore.ie (ip187-24.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.24.187]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22303; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:48:55 GMT Message-ID: <3A9A268B.1F0AD21B@baltimore.ie> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:48:59 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Reply-To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jimsch@exmsft.com CC: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt References: <002301c09f80$f660e770$1500a8c0@soaringhawk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Hi Jim, Thanks for reviewing this. > 1. I would like to see a section added to section 2 to describe why this > "trick" is being used rather than just establishing a short-term kek value > which is used for a time period and then tossed. I.e. When do you use this > trick and when do you establish a multi-use kek value. Not clear to me - "establishing a short-term kek value" how? If you mean I should say that you could do this trick or use out-of-band mechanisms to establish a kek, fine. Otherwise, I'm not sure what text you'd like. > 2. Please add a paragraph to the security section area about the fact that > byte reversal may not be a good idea if the algorithm does a parity type > check over a larger than byte block. I.e. describe why the bit-wise > flip-flop was a "bad" idea. Good idea. > 3. Section 3, Note 2. Please change the text from "can occur in any of > the" to "can occur with any of the". The attribute cannot occur inside of > any ReceipientInfo object as it is an unathenticated attribute. Fine. > 4. Section 3. id-reck-attrs has a TBD. Yes. Russ? > 5. Section 3. What is the default value of CEKMaxDecrypts if it is not > present. Given that its a hint, that's implementation specific and so there's no generic default. If folks wanted one, I'd go with 10, but I think we can omit this. > 6. Section 4. First, the CE algorithm and the KE algorithm are never "the > same" in some sense. id-alg-CMS3DESwrap and des-ede3-cbc are different in a > number of significant ways. Please change the text. I would suggest > something along "If the CE algorithm and KE algorithm use the same key > material...". I have problems with even this because of the question of a > CEK of 128-bit RC2 and a KEK of 40-bit RC2 in which case it is not clear > that this is the algorithm one should be using. No problem adding text clarifying what "same" means here. How about: "Note: In some sense, the CEK and KEK algorithms are never the "same", e.g. id-alg-CMS3DESwrap and des-ede3-cbc differ. However, for the purposes of this specification, all we care about is that the algorithms use the same format and size of keying material (see also security considerations) and that they do not differ significantly in terms of the resulting cryptographic "strength". In that sense the two algorithms in the example above are the "same."" > The best overall approach might be to say that if the KEK is A and the CEK > is B then you use the byte-reveral method and just the list ones that > "match" in impedance. I'd really rather not be listing pairs of algorithms in this document. Would the addition of the text above be sufficient? > > 7. Remove appendix B. Nope:-) Actually, I think these are very useful and the RFC editor seems happy to reomve 'em. > > 8. Appendix A. Missing module number Yep. Russ? > 9. Appendix A. --<<IMPLICIT??>>-- should be removed or fixed Well, which do you prefer in this case? I'm not sure. > > 10. id-reck-attrs is TDB Yep. > > 12. Please add comments to the effect of what goes into each of the fields > and that there is an association between the pairs as OID attribute value. Huh? You mean in the ASN.1 module? I think in a 7 page i-d, the reader is expected to read more than just the ASN.1 module. Stephen. -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.com Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11305 for ietf-smime-bks; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.83]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11299 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from revelation ([65.4.166.11]) by femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010225231225.PEBM11050.femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com@revelation> for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:12:25 -0800 Reply-To: <jimsch@exmsft.com> From: "Jim Schaad" <jimsch5@home.com> To: <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:16:18 -0800 Message-ID: <002301c09f80$f660e770$1500a8c0@soaringhawk.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 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> First - I assume that the last call is not going to be closed on the 26th because a new version of the document needs to be issued with some fixes in it. Changes that I think need to be addressed before advancement. 1. I would like to see a section added to section 2 to describe why this "trick" is being used rather than just establishing a short-term kek value which is used for a time period and then tossed. I.e. When do you use this trick and when do you establish a multi-use kek value. 2. Please add a paragraph to the security section area about the fact that byte reversal may not be a good idea if the algorithm does a parity type check over a larger than byte block. I.e. describe why the bit-wise flip-flop was a "bad" idea. 3. Section 3, Note 2. Please change the text from "can occur in any of the" to "can occur with any of the". The attribute cannot occur inside of any ReceipientInfo object as it is an unathenticated attribute. 4. Section 3. id-reck-attrs has a TBD. 5. Section 3. What is the default value of CEKMaxDecrypts if it is not present. 6. Section 4. First, the CE algorithm and the KE algorithm are never "the same" in some sense. id-alg-CMS3DESwrap and des-ede3-cbc are different in a number of significant ways. Please change the text. I would suggest something along "If the CE algorithm and KE algorithm use the same key material...". I have problems with even this because of the question of a CEK of 128-bit RC2 and a KEK of 40-bit RC2 in which case it is not clear that this is the algorithm one should be using. The best overall approach might be to say that if the KEK is A and the CEK is B then you use the byte-reveral method and just the list ones that "match" in impedance. 7. Remove appendix B. 8. Appendix A. Missing module number 9. Appendix A. --<<IMPLICIT??>>-- should be removed or fixed 10. id-reck-attrs is TDB 12. Please add comments to the effect of what goes into each of the fields and that there is an association between the pairs as OID attribute value. jim Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24842 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:58:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.eris.dera.gov.uk (ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk [128.98.1.1]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA24832 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:58:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18799 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 15:58:47 -0000 Received: from cray.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk) (128.98.2.7) by ens0.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 15:58:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 7161 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 15:58:46 -0000 Received: from wottaway.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO wottaway) (128.98.10.192) by mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 15:58:46 -0000 From: "William Ottaway" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> To: <jimsch@exmsft.com>, "'Bonatti, Chris'" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Cc: <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:03:26 -0000 Message-ID: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHEEJIDMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <001601c09daf$6c4cbd20$1500a8c0@soaringhawk.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 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> Jim, I think I'm inferring what is done. :-) My only gripe is I don't like the statement "This format can also be used to convey CRLs." followed by a description of how to carry certificates but no description of how to carry CRLs in a similar format. Its too late to change RFC 2633 but draft-ietf-smime-x400trans could say something different. 1) Don't mention that CRLs can be carried in a similar way to a certs only message or 2) Specify an OID for a CRL only message. Bill. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Schaad [mailto:jimsch5@home.com] > Sent: 23 February 2001 15:44 > To: 'William Ottaway'; 'Bonatti, Chris' > Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org > Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > Bill, > > I think you are over infering what is done. While it would be possible to > define a CRLs only message nobody has done so todate. At this > point in time > CRLs are distributed (for S/MIME) either in a signed/encrypted > message (with > content) or the client is responsable to finding the CRL by following CDPs > and the like. > > jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of William Ottaway > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 9:08 AM > To: Bonatti, Chris > Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org > Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > Chris, > > RFC 2633 hints that CRLs can be sent in a similar format to a cert only > message. It then states that for a cert only message the smime type is > "certs-only". > > I interpret the text in 3.6 of RFC 2633 as telling me that a CRL only > message could be sent in a similar way as the cert only message but would > have a "crl-only" smime type. > > I can't comment on how CRLs are commonly sent. > > If you don't believe that you will use the same mechanism to > transport CRLs > as certs I would suggest removing the text "This format can also > be used to > convey CRLs". > > Bill. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > > Sent: 21 February 2001 17:26 > > To: William Ottaway > > Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org > > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > Bill, > > > > I would not object to this myself, but it differs from the > > treatment in > > RFC 2633. Also, I don't think CRLs are commonly sent using this > > mechanism, so > > I wonder about whether it's a scenario worth optimizing for. > > > > Chris > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > Rather than state "This format can also be used to convey CRLs > > " how about > > > specifying an OID for CRLs and describing how a CRL is > transported, this > > > could be in a separate section or you could describe CRL and > certificate > > > transport in the same section, as the only difference will be the OID. > > > > > > Bill. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > > > > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Bonatti, Chris > > > > Sent: 20 February 2001 15:22 > > > > To: ietf-smime@imc.org > > > > Subject: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > > > > > > > Some discussion after the December meeting, suggested that we > > > > revise the specification for transporting S/MIME objects in X.400 > > > > (draft-ietf-smime-x400trans) to enable certs-only messages to be > > > > readily identified. This responds to the assumption that the > > > > PKCS #10 certificate request may be adapted to and used in the > > > > X.400 environment. I admittedly didn't go down this road in my > > > > thinking, but it seems plausible enough. > > > > > > > > After elaborating all the options (and doing some significant > > > > consultation with X.400 wonks) I recommend that we use the > > > > Encoded Information Types (EITs) facility of X.400 to distinguish > > > > the certs-only messages. This mechanism is non-invasive to the > > > > security function, well-suited to the job at hand, and well > > > > supported in the X.400 community. The main impact to x400trans > > > > spec is that we define a new OID value to represent the new > > > > "certs-only" EIT. To that end, I propose that the following new > > > > section (see below) be inserted in the spec. > > > > > > > > Discussion on this point is, of course, welcome. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > > > > > 2.5 Certificates-only Message > > > > > > > > The certificates-only message is used to transport certificates, > > > > such as in response to a registration request. This format can > > > > also be used to convey CRLs. The certificates-only message > > > > consists of a single instance of CMS content of type > > > > Signed-data. The encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent > > > > and signerInfos field MUST be empty. > > > > > > > > The resulting certificates-only CMS content is conveyed in > > > > accordance with section 2.2. The following OID value is defined > > > > to identify certificates-only messages in the X.400 transport > > > > environment. > > > > > > > > id-eit-certsOnly OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > > > > { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) > > > > pkcs-9(9) smime(16) eits(***) certsOnly(1) } > > > > > > > > Sending agents SHOULD include this OID in the > > > > original-encoded-information-types (EITs) field of the X.400 > > > > message envelope. Receiving agents SHOULD recognize the this OID > > > > value in the EITs field, and process the certificates-only > > > > appropriately according to local procedures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22562 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.83]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22552 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from revelation ([65.4.166.11]) by femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010223153959.ZKAT11050.femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com@revelation>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:39:59 -0800 Reply-To: <jimsch@exmsft.com> From: "Jim Schaad" <jimsch5@home.com> To: "'William Ottaway'" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk>, "'Bonatti, Chris'" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Cc: <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:43:50 -0800 Message-ID: <001601c09daf$6c4cbd20$1500a8c0@soaringhawk.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHKEIODMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 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> Bill, I think you are over infering what is done. While it would be possible to define a CRLs only message nobody has done so todate. At this point in time CRLs are distributed (for S/MIME) either in a signed/encrypted message (with content) or the client is responsable to finding the CRL by following CDPs and the like. jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of William Ottaway Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 9:08 AM To: Bonatti, Chris Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Chris, RFC 2633 hints that CRLs can be sent in a similar format to a cert only message. It then states that for a cert only message the smime type is "certs-only". I interpret the text in 3.6 of RFC 2633 as telling me that a CRL only message could be sent in a similar way as the cert only message but would have a "crl-only" smime type. I can't comment on how CRLs are commonly sent. If you don't believe that you will use the same mechanism to transport CRLs as certs I would suggest removing the text "This format can also be used to convey CRLs". Bill. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > Sent: 21 February 2001 17:26 > To: William Ottaway > Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > Bill, > > I would not object to this myself, but it differs from the > treatment in > RFC 2633. Also, I don't think CRLs are commonly sent using this > mechanism, so > I wonder about whether it's a scenario worth optimizing for. > > Chris > > > ____________________ > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > Rather than state "This format can also be used to convey CRLs > " how about > > specifying an OID for CRLs and describing how a CRL is transported, this > > could be in a separate section or you could describe CRL and certificate > > transport in the same section, as the only difference will be the OID. > > > > Bill. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > > > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Bonatti, Chris > > > Sent: 20 February 2001 15:22 > > > To: ietf-smime@imc.org > > > Subject: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > > > > Some discussion after the December meeting, suggested that we > > > revise the specification for transporting S/MIME objects in X.400 > > > (draft-ietf-smime-x400trans) to enable certs-only messages to be > > > readily identified. This responds to the assumption that the > > > PKCS #10 certificate request may be adapted to and used in the > > > X.400 environment. I admittedly didn't go down this road in my > > > thinking, but it seems plausible enough. > > > > > > After elaborating all the options (and doing some significant > > > consultation with X.400 wonks) I recommend that we use the > > > Encoded Information Types (EITs) facility of X.400 to distinguish > > > the certs-only messages. This mechanism is non-invasive to the > > > security function, well-suited to the job at hand, and well > > > supported in the X.400 community. The main impact to x400trans > > > spec is that we define a new OID value to represent the new > > > "certs-only" EIT. To that end, I propose that the following new > > > section (see below) be inserted in the spec. > > > > > > Discussion on this point is, of course, welcome. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > > > 2.5 Certificates-only Message > > > > > > The certificates-only message is used to transport certificates, > > > such as in response to a registration request. This format can > > > also be used to convey CRLs. The certificates-only message > > > consists of a single instance of CMS content of type > > > Signed-data. The encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent > > > and signerInfos field MUST be empty. > > > > > > The resulting certificates-only CMS content is conveyed in > > > accordance with section 2.2. The following OID value is defined > > > to identify certificates-only messages in the X.400 transport > > > environment. > > > > > > id-eit-certsOnly OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > > > { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) > > > pkcs-9(9) smime(16) eits(***) certsOnly(1) } > > > > > > Sending agents SHOULD include this OID in the > > > original-encoded-information-types (EITs) field of the X.400 > > > message envelope. Receiving agents SHOULD recognize the this OID > > > value in the EITs field, and process the certificates-only > > > appropriately according to local procedures. > > > > > > > > > > Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26058 for ietf-smime-bks; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-a.capu.net (IDENT:0@smtp-a.capu.net [205.177.76.122]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26053 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:25:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ieca.com (dial-216-98.capu.net [64.50.216.98]) by smtp-a.capu.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17234; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:25:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3A9559A6.223D5937@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:25:42 -0500 From: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Organization: IECA, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Ottaway <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> CC: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport References: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHKEIODMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Bill, What 3.6 says seems pretty clear. It says: > The certificates only message or MIME entity is used to transport > certificates, such as in response to a registration request. This > format can also be used to convey CRLs. > This seems pretty clear that they are the same format. It then goes on to say that the certs-only format is an empty 'SignedData' structure. So if this were to be used for CRLs, I would make the inference that the 'certificates' and 'crls' fields of the 'signedData' should be used. Chris _____________________ William Ottaway wrote: > Chris, > > RFC 2633 hints that CRLs can be sent in a similar format to a cert only > message. It then states that for a cert only message the smime type is > "certs-only". > > I interpret the text in 3.6 of RFC 2633 as telling me that a CRL only > message could be sent in a similar way as the cert only message but would > have a "crl-only" smime type. > > I can't comment on how CRLs are commonly sent. > > If you don't believe that you will use the same mechanism to transport CRLs > as certs I would suggest removing the text "This format can also be used to > convey CRLs". > > Bill. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > > Sent: 21 February 2001 17:26 > > To: William Ottaway > > Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org > > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > Bill, > > > > I would not object to this myself, but it differs from the > > treatment in > > RFC 2633. Also, I don't think CRLs are commonly sent using this > > mechanism, so > > I wonder about whether it's a scenario worth optimizing for. > > > > Chris > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > Rather than state "This format can also be used to convey CRLs > > " how about > > > specifying an OID for CRLs and describing how a CRL is transported, this > > > could be in a separate section or you could describe CRL and certificate > > > transport in the same section, as the only difference will be the OID. > > > > > > Bill. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > > > > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Bonatti, Chris > > > > Sent: 20 February 2001 15:22 > > > > To: ietf-smime@imc.org > > > > Subject: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > > > > > > > Some discussion after the December meeting, suggested that we > > > > revise the specification for transporting S/MIME objects in X.400 > > > > (draft-ietf-smime-x400trans) to enable certs-only messages to be > > > > readily identified. This responds to the assumption that the > > > > PKCS #10 certificate request may be adapted to and used in the > > > > X.400 environment. I admittedly didn't go down this road in my > > > > thinking, but it seems plausible enough. > > > > > > > > After elaborating all the options (and doing some significant > > > > consultation with X.400 wonks) I recommend that we use the > > > > Encoded Information Types (EITs) facility of X.400 to distinguish > > > > the certs-only messages. This mechanism is non-invasive to the > > > > security function, well-suited to the job at hand, and well > > > > supported in the X.400 community. The main impact to x400trans > > > > spec is that we define a new OID value to represent the new > > > > "certs-only" EIT. To that end, I propose that the following new > > > > section (see below) be inserted in the spec. > > > > > > > > Discussion on this point is, of course, welcome. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > > > > > 2.5 Certificates-only Message > > > > > > > > The certificates-only message is used to transport certificates, > > > > such as in response to a registration request. This format can > > > > also be used to convey CRLs. The certificates-only message > > > > consists of a single instance of CMS content of type > > > > Signed-data. The encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent > > > > and signerInfos field MUST be empty. > > > > > > > > The resulting certificates-only CMS content is conveyed in > > > > accordance with section 2.2. The following OID value is defined > > > > to identify certificates-only messages in the X.400 transport > > > > environment. > > > > > > > > id-eit-certsOnly OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > > > > { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) > > > > pkcs-9(9) smime(16) eits(***) certsOnly(1) } > > > > > > > > Sending agents SHOULD include this OID in the > > > > original-encoded-information-types (EITs) field of the X.400 > > > > message envelope. Receiving agents SHOULD recognize the this OID > > > > value in the EITs field, and process the certificates-only > > > > appropriately according to local procedures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22542 for ietf-smime-bks; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:03:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.eris.dera.gov.uk (ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk [128.98.1.1]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA22536 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19247 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 17:03:13 -0000 Received: from cray.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk) (128.98.2.7) by ens0.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 17:03:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 29512 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 17:03:06 -0000 Received: from wottaway.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO wottaway) (128.98.10.192) by mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 17:03:06 -0000 From: "William Ottaway" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> To: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Cc: <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:07:43 -0000 Message-ID: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHKEIODMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3A93FA2E.972A816E@ieca.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 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> Chris, RFC 2633 hints that CRLs can be sent in a similar format to a cert only message. It then states that for a cert only message the smime type is "certs-only". I interpret the text in 3.6 of RFC 2633 as telling me that a CRL only message could be sent in a similar way as the cert only message but would have a "crl-only" smime type. I can't comment on how CRLs are commonly sent. If you don't believe that you will use the same mechanism to transport CRLs as certs I would suggest removing the text "This format can also be used to convey CRLs". Bill. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@ieca.com] > Sent: 21 February 2001 17:26 > To: William Ottaway > Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org > Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > Bill, > > I would not object to this myself, but it differs from the > treatment in > RFC 2633. Also, I don't think CRLs are commonly sent using this > mechanism, so > I wonder about whether it's a scenario worth optimizing for. > > Chris > > > ____________________ > > William Ottaway wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > Rather than state "This format can also be used to convey CRLs > " how about > > specifying an OID for CRLs and describing how a CRL is transported, this > > could be in a separate section or you could describe CRL and certificate > > transport in the same section, as the only difference will be the OID. > > > > Bill. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > > > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Bonatti, Chris > > > Sent: 20 February 2001 15:22 > > > To: ietf-smime@imc.org > > > Subject: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > > > > Some discussion after the December meeting, suggested that we > > > revise the specification for transporting S/MIME objects in X.400 > > > (draft-ietf-smime-x400trans) to enable certs-only messages to be > > > readily identified. This responds to the assumption that the > > > PKCS #10 certificate request may be adapted to and used in the > > > X.400 environment. I admittedly didn't go down this road in my > > > thinking, but it seems plausible enough. > > > > > > After elaborating all the options (and doing some significant > > > consultation with X.400 wonks) I recommend that we use the > > > Encoded Information Types (EITs) facility of X.400 to distinguish > > > the certs-only messages. This mechanism is non-invasive to the > > > security function, well-suited to the job at hand, and well > > > supported in the X.400 community. The main impact to x400trans > > > spec is that we define a new OID value to represent the new > > > "certs-only" EIT. To that end, I propose that the following new > > > section (see below) be inserted in the spec. > > > > > > Discussion on this point is, of course, welcome. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > > > 2.5 Certificates-only Message > > > > > > The certificates-only message is used to transport certificates, > > > such as in response to a registration request. This format can > > > also be used to convey CRLs. The certificates-only message > > > consists of a single instance of CMS content of type > > > Signed-data. The encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent > > > and signerInfos field MUST be empty. > > > > > > The resulting certificates-only CMS content is conveyed in > > > accordance with section 2.2. The following OID value is defined > > > to identify certificates-only messages in the X.400 transport > > > environment. > > > > > > id-eit-certsOnly OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > > > { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) > > > pkcs-9(9) smime(16) eits(***) certsOnly(1) } > > > > > > Sending agents SHOULD include this OID in the > > > original-encoded-information-types (EITs) field of the X.400 > > > message envelope. Receiving agents SHOULD recognize the this OID > > > value in the EITs field, and process the certificates-only > > > appropriately according to local procedures. > > > > > > > > > > Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20635 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-a.capu.net (IDENT:0@smtp-a.capu.net [205.177.76.122]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20630 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ieca.com (dial-216-83.capu.net [64.50.216.83]) by smtp-a.capu.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01425; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:26:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3A93FA2E.972A816E@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:26:07 -0500 From: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Organization: IECA, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Ottaway <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> CC: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport References: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHCEHMDMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Bill, I would not object to this myself, but it differs from the treatment in RFC 2633. Also, I don't think CRLs are commonly sent using this mechanism, so I wonder about whether it's a scenario worth optimizing for. Chris ____________________ William Ottaway wrote: > Chris, > > Rather than state "This format can also be used to convey CRLs " how about > specifying an OID for CRLs and describing how a CRL is transported, this > could be in a separate section or you could describe CRL and certificate > transport in the same section, as the only difference will be the OID. > > Bill. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Bonatti, Chris > > Sent: 20 February 2001 15:22 > > To: ietf-smime@imc.org > > Subject: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > > > > Some discussion after the December meeting, suggested that we > > revise the specification for transporting S/MIME objects in X.400 > > (draft-ietf-smime-x400trans) to enable certs-only messages to be > > readily identified. This responds to the assumption that the > > PKCS #10 certificate request may be adapted to and used in the > > X.400 environment. I admittedly didn't go down this road in my > > thinking, but it seems plausible enough. > > > > After elaborating all the options (and doing some significant > > consultation with X.400 wonks) I recommend that we use the > > Encoded Information Types (EITs) facility of X.400 to distinguish > > the certs-only messages. This mechanism is non-invasive to the > > security function, well-suited to the job at hand, and well > > supported in the X.400 community. The main impact to x400trans > > spec is that we define a new OID value to represent the new > > "certs-only" EIT. To that end, I propose that the following new > > section (see below) be inserted in the spec. > > > > Discussion on this point is, of course, welcome. > > > > Chris > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > 2.5 Certificates-only Message > > > > The certificates-only message is used to transport certificates, > > such as in response to a registration request. This format can > > also be used to convey CRLs. The certificates-only message > > consists of a single instance of CMS content of type > > Signed-data. The encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent > > and signerInfos field MUST be empty. > > > > The resulting certificates-only CMS content is conveyed in > > accordance with section 2.2. The following OID value is defined > > to identify certificates-only messages in the X.400 transport > > environment. > > > > id-eit-certsOnly OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > > { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) > > pkcs-9(9) smime(16) eits(***) certsOnly(1) } > > > > Sending agents SHOULD include this OID in the > > original-encoded-information-types (EITs) field of the X.400 > > message envelope. Receiving agents SHOULD recognize the this OID > > value in the EITs field, and process the certificates-only > > appropriately according to local procedures. > > > > > > Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08660 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:38:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08656 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id OAA16142; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:38:49 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma015904; Wed, 21 Feb 01 14:37:49 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (unverified) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51ddd77a800a9919351a7@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:37:17 +0000 Received: from baltimore.ie (ip187-24.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.24.187]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20856; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:37:44 GMT Message-ID: <3A93D2B9.DFFF2C56@baltimore.ie> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:37:45 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Reply-To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> CC: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220143843.03c24e88@mail.spyrus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Russ Housley wrote: > > Byte reversal seems okay to me. I agree. If there's a substantive reason to change, then ok, but I don't believe there is. Stephen. -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.com Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04306 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from prv-mail20.provo.novell.com (prv-mail20.provo.novell.com [137.65.81.122]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04302 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from INET-PRV-Message_Server by prv-mail20.provo.novell.com with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:32:24 -0700 Message-Id: <sa929c18.050@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:32:18 -0700 From: "Tolga Acar" <TACAR@novell.com> To: <WWhyte@baltimore.com>, <ekr@rtfm.com>, <ekr@speedy.rtfm.com> Cc: <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>, <ietf-smime@imc.org>, <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_A6FD0398.40211F7E" 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> This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_A6FD0398.40211F7E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline It may be prudent to use a FIPS 140-1/2 certifiable PRF, such as defined = in FIPS 186-2 using SHA-1 in the core. I'm not sure if p1363a's KDF2 is = the same as FIPS 186-2 G function-based PRF. - Tolga >>> ekr@speedy.rtfm.com 2/20/01 16:11:53 >>> William Whyte <WWhyte@baltimore.com> writes: > > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both > perspectives. > >=20 > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, = what >=20 > > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? >=20 > As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I > would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform > is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred > to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's > no stable, freely-available description of this that we could > reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd > be very nice... How about using the PRF from TLS? It's HMAC-based, widely viewed as strong, and easily referenceable. -Ekr --=_A6FD0398.40211F7E Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="TEXT.htm" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 10pt Arial; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px"> <DIV>It may be prudent to use a FIPS 140-1/2 certifiable PRF, such as defined in FIPS 186-2 using SHA-1 in the core. I'm not sure if p1363a's KDF2 is the same as FIPS 186-2 G function-based PRF.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- Tolga<BR><BR>>>> ekr@speedy.rtfm.com 2/20/01 16:11:53 >>><BR>William Whyte <WWhyte@baltimore.com> writes:<BR>> > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both<BR>> perspectives.<BR>> > <BR>> > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what<BR>> <BR>> > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform?<BR>> <BR>> As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I<BR>> would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform<BR>> is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred<BR>> to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's<BR>> no stable, freely-available description of this that we could<BR>> reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd<BR>> be very nice...<BR>How about using the PRF from TLS? It's HMAC-based, widely viewed<BR>as strong, and easily referenceable.<BR><BR>-Ekr<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML> --=_A6FD0398.40211F7E-- Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03697 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:07:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (m206-141.dsl.tsoft.com [198.144.206.141]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03693 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:07:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (ekr@localhost) by romeo.rtfm.com (8.9.3/8.6.4) id PAA24482; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:11:53 -0800 (PST) To: William Whyte <WWhyte@baltimore.com> Cc: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie, ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt References: <3B46C515DDE2D311A70C005004AFCB707D2C3D@emeairl2.ie.baltimore.com> Reply-to: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@speedy.rtfm.com> Date: 20 Feb 2001 15:11:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: William Whyte's message of "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:58:08 -0000" Message-ID: <kj8zn1osp2.fsf@romeo.rtfm.com> Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" 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> William Whyte <WWhyte@baltimore.com> writes: > > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both > perspectives. > > > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what > > > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? > > As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I > would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform > is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred > to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's > no stable, freely-available description of this that we could > reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd > be very nice... How about using the PRF from TLS? It's HMAC-based, widely viewed as strong, and easily referenceable. -Ekr Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02841 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchsrv1.cosinecom.com (mail.cosinecom.com [63.88.104.16]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02834 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchsrv1.cosinecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XBP1GC7>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:25:15 -0800 Message-ID: <7EB7C6B62C4FD41196A80090279A2911016E0D92@exchsrv1.cosinecom.com> From: Paul Lambert <Paul.Lambert@cosinecom.com> To: "'William Whyte'" <WWhyte@baltimore.com> Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org, Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:25:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09B8B.FEA59DC0" 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> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09B8B.FEA59DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The ANSI documents are not on line, but there is a short description of the KDF in section 3.8 of: http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/kms/summary-x9-63.pdf Is this the one you're proposing? Paul -----Original Message----- From: William Whyte [mailto:WWhyte@baltimore.com] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 1:58 AM To: Russ Housley; stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both perspectives. > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's no stable, freely-available description of this that we could reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd be very nice... (I have to say I'm uncomfortable with the hacky use of PKCS#5 here. But at least PKCS#5 is referenceable). Cheers, William ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or appearance at trade shows and conferences. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses. http://www.baltimore.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09B8B.FEA59DC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2653.12"> <TITLE>RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The ANSI documents are not on line, but there is a = short description of the KDF in section 3.8 of:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2><A = HREF=3D"http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/kms/summary-x9-63.pdf" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/kms/summary-x9-63.pdf<= /A></FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Is this the one you're proposing?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Paul </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: William Whyte [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:WWhyte@baltimore.com">mailto:WWhyte@baltimore.com</A>]</F= ONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 1:58 AM</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Russ Housley; = stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: RE: WG Last = Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >William suggests byte reversal instead, = which seems ok from both</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>perspectives.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and = bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> are you going to use as the mandatory to = implement transform?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In = fact, what I</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>would most like to see as the mandatory to implement = transform</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function = referred</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my = knowledge there's</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>no stable, freely-available description of this that = we could</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC = that'd</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>be very nice...</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>(I have to say I'm uncomfortable with the hacky use = of PKCS#5</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>here. But at least PKCS#5 is referenceable).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>William</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT = SIZE=3D2>---------------------------------------------------------------= --------------</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for = direct, special, indirect </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>or consequential damages arising = from alteration of the contents of this</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>message by a third party or as a result of any virus = being passed on.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be = added from time to time to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, = Global e-Security or</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>appearance at trade shows and conferences.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This footnote confirms that this email message has = been swept by</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, = including</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>computer viruses.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> <A HREF=3D"http://www.baltimore.com" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.baltimore.com</A></FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09B8B.FEA59DC0-- Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29712 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:13:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29706 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id UAA24086; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:13:45 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma013935; Tue, 20 Feb 01 15:31:16 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (unverified) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51d8e066df0a9919351a7@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:28:56 +0000 Received: from irlbdc.ie.baltimore.com (irlbdc.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.25.3]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19083; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:29:21 GMT Received: by irlbdc.ie.baltimore.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <FKH6YAXL>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:32:23 -0000 Message-ID: <3B46C515DDE2D311A70C005004AFCB707D2C3D@emeairl2.ie.baltimore.com> From: William Whyte <WWhyte@baltimore.com> To: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:58:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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> > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both perspectives. > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's no stable, freely-available description of this that we could reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd be very nice... (I have to say I'm uncomfortable with the hacky use of PKCS#5 here. But at least PKCS#5 is referenceable). Cheers, William ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or appearance at trade shows and conferences. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses. http://www.baltimore.com Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29207 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:51:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29203 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:51:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from RHOUSLEY-PC.spyrus.com ([209.172.119.211]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13729; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:49:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220143843.03c24e88@mail.spyrus.com> X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:39:11 -0500 To: William Whyte <WWhyte@baltimore.com> From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org In-Reply-To: <3B46C515DDE2D311A70C005004AFCB707D2C3D@emeairl2.ie.baltimo re.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> Byte reversal seems okay to me. Russ At 09:58 AM 2/19/2001 +0000, William Whyte wrote: > > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both >perspectives. > > > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what > > > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? > >As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I >would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform >is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred >to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's >no stable, freely-available description of this that we could >reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd >be very nice... > >(I have to say I'm uncomfortable with the hacky use of PKCS#5 >here. But at least PKCS#5 is referenceable). > >Cheers, > >William > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect >or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this >message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. > >In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to >promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or >appearance at trade shows and conferences. > >This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by >Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including >computer viruses. > http://www.baltimore.com Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23525 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.eris.dera.gov.uk (ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk [128.98.1.1]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA23514 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 10871 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2001 16:14:55 -0000 Received: from cray.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk) (128.98.2.7) by ens0.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 20 Feb 2001 16:14:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 1505 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2001 16:14:54 -0000 Received: from wottaway.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO wottaway) (128.98.10.192) by mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 20 Feb 2001 16:14:54 -0000 From: "William Ottaway" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> To: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com>, <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:19:25 -0000 Message-ID: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHCEHMDMAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3A928B93.B9C33B74@ieca.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 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> Chris, Rather than state "This format can also be used to convey CRLs " how about specifying an OID for CRLs and describing how a CRL is transported, this could be in a separate section or you could describe CRL and certificate transport in the same section, as the only difference will be the OID. Bill. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Bonatti, Chris > Sent: 20 February 2001 15:22 > To: ietf-smime@imc.org > Subject: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport > > > Some discussion after the December meeting, suggested that we > revise the specification for transporting S/MIME objects in X.400 > (draft-ietf-smime-x400trans) to enable certs-only messages to be > readily identified. This responds to the assumption that the > PKCS #10 certificate request may be adapted to and used in the > X.400 environment. I admittedly didn't go down this road in my > thinking, but it seems plausible enough. > > After elaborating all the options (and doing some significant > consultation with X.400 wonks) I recommend that we use the > Encoded Information Types (EITs) facility of X.400 to distinguish > the certs-only messages. This mechanism is non-invasive to the > security function, well-suited to the job at hand, and well > supported in the X.400 community. The main impact to x400trans > spec is that we define a new OID value to represent the new > "certs-only" EIT. To that end, I propose that the following new > section (see below) be inserted in the spec. > > Discussion on this point is, of course, welcome. > > Chris > > > ____________________ > > 2.5 Certificates-only Message > > The certificates-only message is used to transport certificates, > such as in response to a registration request. This format can > also be used to convey CRLs. The certificates-only message > consists of a single instance of CMS content of type > Signed-data. The encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent > and signerInfos field MUST be empty. > > The resulting certificates-only CMS content is conveyed in > accordance with section 2.2. The following OID value is defined > to identify certificates-only messages in the X.400 transport > environment. > > id-eit-certsOnly OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) > pkcs-9(9) smime(16) eits(***) certsOnly(1) } > > Sending agents SHOULD include this OID in the > original-encoded-information-types (EITs) field of the X.400 > message envelope. Receiving agents SHOULD recognize the this OID > value in the EITs field, and process the certificates-only > appropriately according to local procedures. > > > Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17418 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:22:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-a.capu.net (IDENT:0@smtp-a.capu.net [205.177.76.122]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17414 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:22:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ieca.com (dial-216-28.capu.net [64.50.216.28]) by smtp-a.capu.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04428 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:22:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3A928B93.B9C33B74@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:21:55 -0500 From: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC@ieca.com> Organization: IECA, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Some discussion after the December meeting, suggested that we revise the specification for transporting S/MIME objects in X.400 (draft-ietf-smime-x400trans) to enable certs-only messages to be readily identified. This responds to the assumption that the PKCS #10 certificate request may be adapted to and used in the X.400 environment. I admittedly didn't go down this road in my thinking, but it seems plausible enough. After elaborating all the options (and doing some significant consultation with X.400 wonks) I recommend that we use the Encoded Information Types (EITs) facility of X.400 to distinguish the certs-only messages. This mechanism is non-invasive to the security function, well-suited to the job at hand, and well supported in the X.400 community. The main impact to x400trans spec is that we define a new OID value to represent the new "certs-only" EIT. To that end, I propose that the following new section (see below) be inserted in the spec. Discussion on this point is, of course, welcome. Chris ____________________ 2.5 Certificates-only Message The certificates-only message is used to transport certificates, such as in response to a registration request. This format can also be used to convey CRLs. The certificates-only message consists of a single instance of CMS content of type Signed-data. The encapContentInfo eContent field MUST be absent and signerInfos field MUST be empty. The resulting certificates-only CMS content is conveyed in accordance with section 2.2. The following OID value is defined to identify certificates-only messages in the X.400 transport environment. id-eit-certsOnly OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) eits(***) certsOnly(1) } Sending agents SHOULD include this OID in the original-encoded-information-types (EITs) field of the X.400 message envelope. Receiving agents SHOULD recognize the this OID value in the EITs field, and process the certificates-only appropriately according to local procedures. Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24747 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24742 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id KAA15539; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:11:48 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma015004; Mon, 19 Feb 01 10:10:58 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (unverified) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51d29688a60a9919351a7@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:10:31 +0000 Received: from baltimore.ie (ip187-24.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.24.187]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25015; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:10:57 GMT Message-ID: <3A90F136.CE67FD47@baltimore.ie> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:11:02 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Reply-To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> CC: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010211132908.00ab8b00@mail.spyrus.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010215150255.03c79100@mail.spyrus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Hi Russ, > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both perspectives. > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? Byte reversal, i.e. MSG2.KEK=byte-reverse(MSG1.CEK). If MSG1.CEK has N bytes, then treated as 'C' arrays, MSG2.KEK[i] = MSG1.CEK[N-i]. > > > 2. The document defines three related attributes. It does not tell the > > > implementor how to deal with the situation where some (but not all) of the > > > attributes are implemented. [...] > >All in all, I disagreee that the implementer is left in limbo, but can add > >text like the above if that helps. > > I would like to see the text. How about a new section 5: "5. Conformance. This specification only applies to messages where the CEKReference attribute is present. All attributes specified here SHOULD be ignored unless they are present in a message containing a valid, new or recognised, existing value of CEKReference. The CEKMaxDecrypts attribute is to be treated by the recipient as a hint, but MUST be honored by the originator. The optional to implement KEKDerivationAlgorithm attribute MUST only be present when MSG1.content-encryption-algorithm differs from MSG2.key-encryption-algorithm, in which case it MUST be present. Implementations which recognize this attribute, but do not support the functionality SHOULD ignore the attribute. Ignoring attributes as discussed above, will lead to decryption failures. CMS implementations SHOULD be able to signal the particular reason for this failure to the calling application." > I agree that this is a matter of taste. I guess that I would like to hear > from implementors to resolve this one. Agreed. I think its fair to assume that silence here is concensus not to change the text? Cheers, Stephen. -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.com Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24134 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:52:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24129 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id JAA05261; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:52:49 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma004911; Mon, 19 Feb 01 09:52:12 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (unverified) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51d28556fa0a9919351a7@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:51:44 +0000 Received: from irlbdc.ie.baltimore.com (irlbdc.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.25.3]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24223; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:52:10 GMT Received: by irlbdc.ie.baltimore.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1ZWFNBY9>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:59:53 -0000 Message-ID: <3B46C515DDE2D311A70C005004AFCB707D2C3D@emeairl2.ie.baltimore.com> From: William Whyte <WWhyte@baltimore.com> To: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:58:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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> > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both perspectives. > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's no stable, freely-available description of this that we could reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd be very nice... (I have to say I'm uncomfortable with the hacky use of PKCS#5 here. But at least PKCS#5 is referenceable). Cheers, William ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or appearance at trade shows and conferences. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses. http://www.baltimore.com Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29191 for ietf-smime-bks; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29183 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from RHOUSLEY-PC.spyrus.com (dial03.spyrus.com [207.212.34.123]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11052; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:48:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010215150255.03c79100@mail.spyrus.com> X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:13:32 -0500 To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org In-Reply-To: <3A89131C.F66C1062@baltimore.ie> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010211132908.00ab8b00@mail.spyrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> Steve: > > 1. The default transformation from a CEK to a KEK is reversing the order > > of the bits. For a DES or 3DES key, this will cause parity bits to become > > keying material. I would prefer a default transformation that did not mix > > parity and keying material since 3DES in the S/MIME mandatory to implement > > cipher. I propose a bitwise NOT. > >Good catch. However, you're caught yourself too! > >The original reason to include bit reversal was: (raised by James Manger) > >"One attack against this proposal springs to mind. An attacker knowing some >of the plaintext (a prefix in a field for instance) can use the >corresponding ciphertext block as the next encrypted CEK, i.e. as >KEKRecipientInfo.encryptedKey. Now the attacker know the next CEK. [note. >this attacks may be unfair - by attacking something the proposal was not >claiming to protect - but I am unsure what others believe the proposal does >protect]" > >And I'm afraid that with bitwise-NOT and the DES complementarity property >(thanks to William Whyte for spotting this), the original bad feature raises >its head again (isn't key management fun:-). > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both perspectives. Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? > > 2. The document defines three related attributes. It does not tell the > > implementor how to deal with the situation where some (but not all) of the > > attributes are implemented. > >Disagree. You MUST support CEKReference and CEKMaxDecrypts, and MAY support >KEKDerivationAlgorithm. (If that's not clear I will make it more so.) > >CEKReference clearly has to be present or everything else is to be ignored. > >CEKMaxDecrypts is only really a hint in any case, so if its not present the >recipient just keeps the CEKReference for a locally configured period (in >reality this'd be specified in some specification for the use case of this >trick). > >KEKDerivationAlgorithm clearly has to be present if algorithms will change >for MSG2, otherwise not. > >All in all, I disagreee that the implementer is left in limbo, but can add >text like the above if that helps. I would like to see the text. > > I suggest that a single attribute that > > includes some OPTIONAL fields might be preferable. > >I think this is a matter of taste - you prefer a single "structured" >attribute, >my preference is for a set of "flat" attributes (I think its easier to >code for >most ASN.1 handlers). 'Course, I'll switch if that's the concensus (i.e. if a >few other folks chip in on the subject). I agree that this is a matter of taste. I guess that I would like to hear from implementors to resolve this one. > > Perhaps: > > > > CEKReference ::= SEQUENCE { > > ref OCTET STRING, > > maxDecrypts INTEGER OPTIONAL, > > kekDerivationAlg OBJECT IDENTIFIER DEFAULT > id-alg-bitwise-not, > > kekDerivationParam ANY DEFINED BY kekDerivationAlg OPTIONAL } > > > In addition to making it straightforward to discuss the interactions > > between the fields, this approach allows other KEK Derivation algorithms to > > be specified in the future without any modification to the > > specification. If the bit order reversal algorithm is needed, a simple OID > > assignment and statement that parameters are not needed completes the > > task. The PKCS#5 KEK derivation is an OID assignment where parameters are > > required. > >That last point is fair enough. OTOH, the current syntax also has the >required extensibility via the attribute OID for KEKDerivationAlgorithm >(which maybe should therefore be called PKCS5KEKDerivationAlgorithm?). In general, I prefer to distribute keys with an algorithm identifier that tells the recipient how to use the key. In this case, the CEK and the CEK algorithm are handled by CMS. By default, the CEK and KEK will employ the same algorithm. If not, then the transformation and the KEK algorithm should be part of the management information. Russ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25181 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from wfhqex05.gfgsi.com (netva01.wangfed.com [206.137.100.2]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25173; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:20:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by wfhqex05.gfgsi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <Z2A4YA6A>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:23:58 -0500 Message-ID: <0B95FB5619B3D411817E006008A5925945EC75@wfhqex06.gfgsi.com> From: "Pawling, John" <John.Pawling@GetronicsGov.com> To: "Pawling, John" <John.Pawling@GetronicsGov.com> Subject: v1.9 S/MIME Freeware Library Now Available Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:23:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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> All, Getronics Government Solutions has delivered Version 1.9 of the S/MIME Freeware Library (SFL) source code. The SFL source code files are freely available to everyone from the Getronics Government Solutions web site at <http://www.getronicsgov.com/hot/sfl_home.htm>. The SFL implements the IETF S/MIME v3 RFC 2630 Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and RFC 2634 Enhanced Security Services (ESS) specifications. It also implements portions of the RFC 2633 Message Specification and RFC 2632 Certificate Handling document. When used in conjunction with the Crypto++ v4.1 freeware library, the SFL implements the RFC 2631 Diffie-Hellman (D-H) Key Agreement Method specification. It has been successfully tested using the MS Windows NT/95/98/2000, Linux and Solaris 2.7 operating systems. Further enhancements, ports and testing of the SFL are still in process. Further releases of the SFL will be provided as significant capabilities are added. The SFL has been successfully used to sign, verify, encrypt and decrypt CMS/ESS objects using: S/MIME v3 mandatory-to-implement algorithms (DSA, E-S D- H, 3DES) provided by the Crypto++ v4.1 library; RSA suite of algorithms provided by the RSA BSAFE v4.2 and Crypto++ v4.1 libraries; and Fortezza suite of algorithms provided by the Fortezza Crypto Card. The v1.9 SFL uses the v1.3 R5 Enhanced SNACC ASN.1 Library to encode/decode objects. The v1.9 SFL release includes: SFL High-level library; Free (a.k.a. Crypto++) Crypto Token Interface Library (CTIL); BSAFE CTIL; Fortezza CTIL; SPEX/ CTIL; PKCS #11 CTIL; v1.3 R5 Enhanced SNACC ASN.1 Compiler and Library; test utilities; test drivers; and test data. All CTILs were tested as Dynamically Linked Libraries (DLL) using MS Windows. The Fortezza, BSAFE and Crypto++ CTILs were tested with the respective security libraries as shared objects using Linux and Solaris 2.7. The SFL has been successfully used to exchange signedData and envelopedData messages with the Microsoft (MS) Internet Explorer Outlook Express v4.01, Netscape Communicator 4.X and Entrust S/MIME v2 products. Signed messages have been exchanged with the RSA S/MAIL and WorldTalk S/MIME v2 products. The SFL has also been used to perform S/MIME v3 interoperability testing with Microsoft that exercised the majority of the features specified by RFCs 2630, 2631 and 2634. This testing included the RSA, mandatory S/MIME V3 and Fortezza suites of algorithms. We used the SFL to successfully process all of the SFL-supported sample data included in the S/MIME WG "Examples of S/MIME Messages" document. We also used the SFL to generate S/MIME v3 sample messages that were included in the "Examples" document. We have also performed limited S/MIME v3 testing with Baltimore. The following enhancements are included in the v1.9 SFL and CTIL releases (compared with the v1.8 releases): 1) Tested using common v1.3 R5 Enhanced SNACC ASN.1 Library, v1.9 CTILs and LIBCERT libraries shared with the v1.5 Access Control Library (ACL) and v1.9 Certificate Management Library (CML). 2) Added freeware implementation of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm (in addition to SHA-1) to the Common Class inherited by all CTILs. 3) Enhanced PKCS #11 CTIL so that it can be used with any PKCS #11-compliant DLL/shared library. 4) Successfully tested PKCS #11 CTIL with Litronic Maestro v1.0 library (using Fortezza Card). Successfully performed interop testing between Fortezza CTIL and PKCS #11 CTIL. 5) Successfully tested PKCS #11 CTIL with the GemPlus PKCS #11 library (DLL) using a GemPlus Smart Card (to provide RSA); and Free3 CTIL with the Crypto++ library (to provide 3DES). Successfully performed interop testing between this configuration and Free3 CTIL. 6) We developed and tested a hybrid CTIL that inherits the PKCS #11 and Free3 CTILs. This allows the application to access both CTILs using a single login. We tested the hybrid CTIL to use: PKCS #11 CTIL with the GemPlus DLL using a GemPlus Smart Card (to provide RSA); and Free3 CTIL with the Crypto++ library (to provide 3DES). Note that we did not modify the PKCS #11 and Free3 CTILs to support this work. 7) Successfully tested PKCS #11 CTIL with the DataKey PKCS #11 library (DLL) using a DataKey Smart Card (to provide RSA); and Free3 CTIL with the Crypto++ library (to provide 3DES). Successfully performed interop testing between this configuration and Free3 CTIL. 8) Successfully tested SFL with SPEX/ CTIL, Spyrus SPEX/ 2 Library, and Lynks Cards, including using RSA and Triple-DES. 9) Enhanced common CTIL functionality to accept no parameters and to provide hash, content, encrypt/decrypt, signature verification services. 10) Tested Free3 CTIL with Crypto++ v4.1. 11) Enhanced SFL test utilities to create/process MIME headings using Mozilla MIME library. 12) Enhanced ReportTool to completely process PKCS #12 file and provide decrypted contents. 13) Developed code to generate RSA key material using the Crypto++ library. 14) Enhanced CertificateBuilder to create PKCS #12 files including DSA private keys and related data. 15) Converted all source code to use CVS configuration management system. 16) Corrected bugs in SFL: incorrect E-S D-H object identifier (OID); ESSSecurityLabel build/process code; Party A information field used with D-H; envelopedData keyTransportRecipientInfo version; and NULL parameter incorrectly omitted when RSA OID is present. 17) Corrected bugs in Fortezza and SPEX/ CTILs (3DES initialization vector ASN.1 encoded improperly). 18) Resolved compiler warnings in SFL and CTILs. 19) Performed regression testing to ensure that aforementioned enhancements did not break existing SFL functionality. 20) Successfully linked (using Windows) the v1.9 SFL, v1.3 R5 SNACC and v1.9 CML. We also delivered the v1.9 SFL Application Programming Interface (API) and v1.9 SDD API documents. We also delivered the v1.0 SMP Components Setup Manual that describes the component installation procedures for the v1.9 SFL, v1.9 CML, and v1.3 R5 Enhanced SNACC libraries. We are still in the process of enhancing and testing the SFL. Future releases will include: additional PKCS #11 CTIL testing; finish CertificateBuilder command line utility; enhancing CertificateBuilder to support creation of Attribute Certificates; add "Certificate Management Messages over CMS" ASN.1 encode/decode functions; add enhanced test routines; bug fixes; support for other crypto APIs (possible); and support for other operating systems. The SFL is developed to maximize portability to 32-bit operating systems. In addition to testing on MS Windows, Linux and Solaris 2.7, we plan to port the SFL to the following operating systems: HP/UX 11, IBM AIX 3.2 (possibly), SCO 5.0 (possibly) and Macintosh (possibly). The following SFL files are available from <http://www.GetronicsGov.com/>: 1) SFL Documents: Fact Sheet, Software Design Description, API, CTIL API, Software Test Description, Implementers Guide, Overview Briefing and Public License. 2) smimeR1.9.tar.gz: Source code, MS Windows NT/95/98/2000 project files and Unix makefiles for SFL Hi-Level library. 3) snacc13r5rn.tar.gz (source code and binaries available from Getronics Enhanced SNACC web page: <http://www.getronicsgov.com/hot/snacc_home.htm>): Source code, MS Windows NT/95/98/2000 project files and Unix makefiles for v1.3 R5 Enhanced SNACC ASN.1 Compiler and Library. Source code is compilable for Linux, Solaris 2.7 and MS Windows NT/95/98/2000 that has been enhanced by GGS to implement the Distinguished Encoding Rules. This file includes a sample test project demonstrating the use of the SNACC classes. 4) smCTIR1.9.tar.gz: Source code, MS Windows NT/95/98/2000 project files and Unix makefiles for the following CTILs: Test (no crypto), Crypto++, BSAFE, Fortezza, SPEX/ and PKCS #11. 5) smLibCR1.9.tar.gz: Source code, MS Windows NT/95/98/2000 project files and Unix makefiles for the LIBCERT library that provides ASN.1 and certificate processing services used by the SFL, ACL and CML. 6) smTest1.9.tar.gz: Source code, MS Windows NT/95/98/2000 project files and Unix makefiles for test drivers used to test the SFL. This file also includes sample CMS/ESS test data and test X.509 Certificates. This file also includes test utilities to create X.509 Certificates that each include a D-H, DSA or RSA public key. 7) csmime.mdl contains SFL Class diagrams created using Microsoft Visual Modeler (comes with MS Visual Studio 6.0, Enterprise Tools). The file can also be viewed using Rational Rose C++ Demo 4.0 45 day evaluation copy which can be obtained from <http://www.rational.com/uml/resources/practice_uml/index.jtmpl>. Not all classes are documented in the MDL file at this time. All source code for the SFL is being provided at no cost and with no financial limitations regarding its use and distribution. Organizations can use the SFL without paying any royalties or licensing fees. Getronics is developing the SFL under contract to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is furnishing the SFL source code at no cost to the vendor subject to the conditions of the "SFL Public License". On 14 January 2000, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Export Administration published a new regulation implementing an update to the U.S. Government's encryption export policy <http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Default.htm>. In accordance with the revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) of 14 Jan 2000, the downloading of the SFL source code is not password controlled. The SFL is composed of a high-level library that performs generic CMS and ESS processing independent of the crypto algorithms used to protect a specific object. The SFL high-level library makes calls to an algorithm-independent CTIL API. The underlying, external crypto token libraries are not distributed as part of the SFL source code. The application developer must independently obtain these libraries and then link them with the SFL. For example, the SFL can be used with the freeware Crypto++ library to obtain 3DES, D-H, RSA and DSA. To use the SFL with Crypto++ the vendor must download the Crypto++ freeware library from the Crypto++ Web Page <http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai/cryptlib.html> and then compile it with the GGS-developed Crypto++ CTIL source code. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is providing test S/MIME messages (created by Getronics) at <http://csrc.nist.gov/pki/testing/x509paths.html>. Getronics used the SFL to successfully process the NIST test data. The Internet Mail Consortium (IMC) has established an SFL web page <http://www.imc.org/imc-sfl>. The IMC has also established an SFL mail list which is used to: distribute information regarding SFL releases; discuss SFL-related issues; and provide a means for SFL users to provide feedback, comments, bug reports, etc. Subscription information for the imc-sfl mailing list is at the IMC web site listed above. All comments regarding the SFL source code and documents are welcome. This SFL release announcement was sent to several mail lists, but please send all messages regarding the SFL to the imc-sfl mail list ONLY. Please do not send messages regarding the SFL to any of the IETF mail lists. We will respond to all messages sent to the imc-sfl mail list. ============================================ John Pawling, John.Pawling@GetronicsGov.com Getronics Government Solutions, LLC ============================================ Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05746 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:12:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05741 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from RHOUSLEY-PC.spyrus.com ([209.172.119.211]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29915; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:49:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010214123514.0329ff28@mail.spyrus.com> X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:50:30 -0500 To: jis@mit.edu, mleech@nortelnetworks.com From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> Jeff & Marcus: The S/MIME WG is done with the DOMSEC document. The document is ready for IETF Last Call. We expect the document to become an Experimental RFC. Title : Domain Security Services using S/MIME Author(s) : T. Dean, W. Ottaway Filename : draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt Pages : 8 Date : 01-Feb-01 Russ Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28978 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28969 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:32:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id KAA20481; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:32:05 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma020086; Wed, 14 Feb 01 10:31:06 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (unverified) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51b8e9352a0a9919351a7@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:30:42 +0000 Received: from baltimore.ie (ip187-24.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.24.187]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21255; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:31:03 GMT Message-ID: <3A8A5E67.21CFC58E@baltimore.ie> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:31:03 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Reply-To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Just <mike.just@entrust.com> CC: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt References: <C69F91F7FDEEC74F8BF6BF9861B2F61303441A@sottmxs07> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Thanks Mike, Will add words to that effect. Stephen. > Mike Just wrote: > > Hi Stephen, Sean, > > Possibly another item worth including in the Security Considerations section. Suppose MSG1 is sent > to a set S1 of users. In the case where MSG2 is sent to only a subset of users in S1, all users > from S1 will still be able to decrypt MSG2 (since MSG2.KEK is computed only from MSG1.CEK). I > don't think you intended for your solution to be used for such dynamic recipient sets, but it > might be worth explicitly mentioning this unfortunate side-effect of key re-use in any case. > (Might be enough to mention that the recipient lists must be the same for each message.) > > Mike J. > -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.com Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08925 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from sottmxs02.entrust.com (gatekeeper.entrust.com [204.101.128.170]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08919 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by sottmxs02.entrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1RVQGWYX>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:45:22 -0500 Message-ID: <C69F91F7FDEEC74F8BF6BF9861B2F61303441A@sottmxs07> From: Mike Just <mike.just@entrust.com> To: ietf-smime@imc.org Cc: "'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'" <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>, "'turners@ieca.com'" <turners@ieca.com> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:45:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0960E.A462A290" 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> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0960E.A462A290 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Stephen, Sean, Possibly another item worth including in the Security Considerations section. Suppose MSG1 is sent to a set S1 of users. In the case where MSG2 is sent to only a subset of users in S1, all users from S1 will still be able to decrypt MSG2 (since MSG2.KEK is computed only from MSG1.CEK). I don't think you intended for your solution to be used for such dynamic recipient sets, but it might be worth explicitly mentioning this unfortunate side-effect of key re-use in any case. (Might be enough to mention that the recipient lists must be the same for each message.) Mike J. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:27 AM > Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the S/MIME Mail Security Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : Reuse of CMS Content Encryption Keys > Author(s) : S. Farrell, S. Turner > Filename : draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt > Pages : 7 > Date : 08-Feb-01 > > This note describes a way to include a key identifier in a CMS > enveloped data structure, so that the content encryption key can be > re-used for further enveloped data packets. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login > with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant > mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0960E.A462A290 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2652.35"> <TITLE>RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi Stephen, Sean,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Possibly another item worth including in the Security = Considerations section. Suppose MSG1 is sent to a set S1 of users. In = the case where MSG2 is sent to only a subset of users in S1, all users = from S1 will still be able to decrypt MSG2 (since MSG2.KEK is computed = only from MSG1.CEK). I don't think you intended for your solution = to be used for such dynamic recipient sets, but it might be worth = explicitly mentioning this unfortunate side-effect of key re-use in any = case. (Might be enough to mention that the recipient lists must be the = same for each message.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Mike J. </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org">mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org= </A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:27 AM</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: I-D = ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the = on-line </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Internet-Drafts directories.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This draft is a work item of the S/MIME Mail = Security Working </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Group of the IETF.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = Title : Reuse of = CMS Content Encryption Keys</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = Author(s) : S. Farrell, S. = Turner</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = Filename : = draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = Pages : 7</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = Date : = 08-Feb-01</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This note describes a way to include a key = identifier in a CMS</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> enveloped data structure, so that the content = encryption key can be</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> re-used for further enveloped data = packets.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> <A = HREF=3D"http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt= " = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-r= cek-01.txt</A></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous = FTP. Login </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> with the username</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> "anonymous" and a password of your = e-mail address. After logging in,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> type "cd internet-drafts" and = then</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> "get = draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt".</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be = found in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> <A HREF=3D"http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</A> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> or <A = HREF=3D"ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt" = TARGET=3D"_blank">ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt</A></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by = e-mail.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Send a message to:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = mailserv@ietf.org.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> In the body type:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> "FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt".</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return = the document in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> MIME-encoded = form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> feature, insert = the command "ENCODING mime" before the = "FILE"</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> command. = To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a MIME-compliant = mail reader. Different MIME-compliant </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> mail readers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> exhibit = different behavior, especially when dealing with</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been = split</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> up into multiple = messages), so check your local documentation on</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> how to = manipulate these messages.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME = compliant mail reader</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> implementation to automatically retrieve the = ASCII version of the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Internet-Draft.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0960E.A462A290-- Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03622 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03617 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from RHOUSLEY-PC.spyrus.com ([209.172.119.211]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13633 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:27:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010213161939.038080f0@mail.spyrus.com> X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:23:48 -0500 To: ietf-smime@imc.org From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: S/MIME WG meeting at 50th IETF Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> The S/MIME WG meeting has been tentatively scheduled for one two-hour session. The DRAFT agenda is available at : http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_50.txt Please send me S/MIME WG agenda topics. I will post a DRAFT S/MIME WG session agenda in a few weeks. As usual, overhead and data projectors will be provided in the meeting room. Russ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18064 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:57:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from balinese.baltimore.ie (firewall-user@pc215-8.indigo.ie [194.125.215.8]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18058 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:57:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by balinese.baltimore.ie; id KAA27670; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:57:53 GMT Received: from emeairlsw1.ie.baltimore.com(10.153.25.53) by balinese.baltimore.ie via smap (V4.2) id xma027542; Tue, 13 Feb 01 10:57:22 GMT Received: from bobcat.baltimore.ie (unverified) by emeairlsw1.baltimore.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T51b3daef3e0a9919351a7@emeairlsw1.baltimore.com>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:57:00 +0000 Received: from baltimore.ie (ip187-24.ie.baltimore.com [10.153.24.187]) by bobcat.baltimore.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20257; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:57:21 GMT Message-ID: <3A89131C.F66C1062@baltimore.ie> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:57:32 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Reply-To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> CC: ietf-smime@imc.org, xme <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie> Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010211132908.00ab8b00@mail.spyrus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Hi Russ, > 1. The default transformation from a CEK to a KEK is reversing the order > of the bits. For a DES or 3DES key, this will cause parity bits to become > keying material. I would prefer a default transformation that did not mix > parity and keying material since 3DES in the S/MIME mandatory to implement > cipher. I propose a bitwise NOT. Good catch. However, you're caught yourself too! The original reason to include bit reversal was: (raised by James Manger) "One attack against this proposal springs to mind. An attacker knowing some of the plaintext (a prefix in a field for instance) can use the corresponding ciphertext block as the next encrypted CEK, i.e. as KEKRecipientInfo.encryptedKey. Now the attacker know the next CEK. [note. this attacks may be unfair - by attacking something the proposal was not claiming to protect - but I am unsure what others believe the proposal does protect]" And I'm afraid that with bitwise-NOT and the DES complementarity property (thanks to William Whyte for spotting this), the original bad feature raises its head again (isn't key management fun:-). William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both perspectives. > 2. The document defines three related attributes. It does not tell the > implementor how to deal with the situation where some (but not all) of the > attributes are implemented. Disagree. You MUST support CEKReference and CEKMaxDecrypts, and MAY support KEKDerivationAlgorithm. (If that's not clear I will make it more so.) CEKReference clearly has to be present or everything else is to be ignored. CEKMaxDecrypts is only really a hint in any case, so if its not present the recipient just keeps the CEKReference for a locally configured period (in reality this'd be specified in some specification for the use case of this trick). KEKDerivationAlgorithm clearly has to be present if algorithms will change for MSG2, otherwise not. All in all, I disagreee that the implementer is left in limbo, but can add text like the above if that helps. > I suggest that a single attribute that > includes some OPTIONAL fields might be preferable. I think this is a matter of taste - you prefer a single "structured" attribute, my preference is for a set of "flat" attributes (I think its easier to code for most ASN.1 handlers). 'Course, I'll switch if that's the concensus (i.e. if a few other folks chip in on the subject). > Perhaps: > > CEKReference ::= SEQUENCE { > ref OCTET STRING, > maxDecrypts INTEGER OPTIONAL, > kekDerivationAlg OBJECT IDENTIFIER DEFAULT id-alg-bitwise-not, > kekDerivationParam ANY DEFINED BY kekDerivationAlg OPTIONAL } > In addition to making it straightforward to discuss the interactions > between the fields, this approach allows other KEK Derivation algorithms to > be specified in the future without any modification to the > specification. If the bit order reversal algorithm is needed, a simple OID > assignment and statement that parameters are not needed completes the > task. The PKCS#5 KEK derivation is an OID assignment where parameters are > required. That last point is fair enough. OTOH, the current syntax also has the required extensibility via the attribute OID for KEKDerivationAlgorithm (which maybe should therefore be called PKCS5KEKDerivationAlgorithm?). Stephen. -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.com Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17683 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:04:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17679 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from RHOUSLEY-PC.spyrus.com (dial03.spyrus.com [207.212.34.123]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20893 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:03:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010211132908.00ab8b00@mail.spyrus.com> X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:57:19 -0500 To: ietf-smime@imc.org From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> I have two concerns about this document. 1. The default transformation from a CEK to a KEK is reversing the order of the bits. For a DES or 3DES key, this will cause parity bits to become keying material. I would prefer a default transformation that did not mix parity and keying material since 3DES in the S/MIME mandatory to implement cipher. I propose a bitwise NOT. 2. The document defines three related attributes. It does not tell the implementor how to deal with the situation where some (but not all) of the attributes are implemented. I suggest that a single attribute that includes some OPTIONAL fields might be preferable. Perhaps: CEKReference ::= SEQUENCE { ref OCTET STRING, maxDecrypts INTEGER OPTIONAL, kekDerivationAlg OBJECT IDENTIFIER DEFAULT id-alg-bitwise-not, kekDerivationParam ANY DEFINED BY kekDerivationAlg OPTIONAL } In addition to making it straightforward to discuss the interactions between the fields, this approach allows other KEK Derivation algorithms to be specified in the future without any modification to the specification. If the bit order reversal algorithm is needed, a simple OID assignment and statement that parameters are not needed completes the task. The PKCS#5 KEK derivation is an OID assignment where parameters are required. Comments? Russ Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22522 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:50:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpadirectory.cpadirectory.com (www.cpadirectory.com [206.112.50.71]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22509 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:50:20 -0800 (PST) From: info@cpadirectoryinc.com Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1]) by cpadirectory.cpadirectory.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:49:36 -0500 To: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: Chat Live with a CPA Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:39:35 -0500 X-Mailer: Allaire ColdFusion Application Server Message-ID: <0bf153649170921CPADIRECTORY@cpadirectory.cpadirectory.com> 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> FREE Chat with a CPA on your tax questions, wondering what 8a on your 1040 means. Our CPAs will answer your questions FREE. Need a CPA in your area? Search our 450,000 CPA database by city, state and industry. <a href="http://www.cpadirectory.com/cpadirectory/askacpa/ask_live_chat.cfm"> http://www.cpadirectory.com/cpadirectory/askacpa/ask_live_chat.cfm </a> Articles and FAQ's on Buying a Business, Estate Taxes, College Aid and Financial Investments are also on <a href="http://www.cpadirectory.com"> http://www.cpadirectory.com </a> If you have received this email in error or wish to be removed from our list, email info@cpadirectoryinc.com with unsubscribe as the subject. Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18942 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18937 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:43:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from RHOUSLEY-PC.spyrus.com ([209.172.119.211]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04763 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:43:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010209112807.00ab7448@mail.spyrus.com> X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:44:06 -0500 To: ietf-smime@imc.org From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Subject: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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> S/MIME WG Members: The RCEK document is ready for S/MIME WG Last Call. The intent is for this document to be published as a Standards Track RFC. S/MIME WG Last Call will close on 26 February 2001. Title : Reuse of CMS Content Encryption Keys Author(s) : S. Farrell, S. Turner Filename : draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Pages : 7 Date : 08-Feb-01 Russ Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01412 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 04:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01407 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 04:26:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14294; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:26:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102091226.HAA14294@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:26:43 -0500 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> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group of the IETF. Title : Reuse of CMS Content Encryption Keys Author(s) : S. Farrell, S. Turner Filename : draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Pages : 7 Date : 08-Feb-01 This note describes a way to include a key identifier in a CMS enveloped data structure, so that the content encryption key can be re-used for further enveloped data packets. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010208140423.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010208140423.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11559 for ietf-smime-bks; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:18:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11553 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:18:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ISI.EDU (jet.isi.edu [128.9.160.87]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05819; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:18:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200102090018.QAA05819@boreas.isi.edu> To: IETF-Announce: ; Subject: RFC 3058 on IDEA Encryption Algorithm in CMS Cc: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU, ietf-smime@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=NextPart Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:18:05 -0800 From: RFC Editor <rfc-ed@ISI.EDU> 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> --NextPart A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 3058 Title: Use of the IDEA Encryption Algorithm in CMS Author(s): S. Teiwes, P. Hartmann, D. Kuenzi Status: Informational Date: February 2001 Mailbox: stephan.teiwes@it-sec.com, peter.hartmann@it-sec.com, dkuenzi@724.com Pages: 8 Characters: 17257 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-smime-08.txt URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3058.txt This memo specifies how to incorporate International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA) into CMS or S/MIME as an additional strong algorithm for symmetric encryption. For organizations who make use of IDEA for data security purposes it is of high interest that IDEA is also available in S/MIME. The intention of this memo is to provide the OIDs and algorithms required that IDEA can be included in S/MIME for symmetric content and key encryption. This document is a product of the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group of the IETF. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution.echo Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the RFCs. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="RFC-INFO@RFC-EDITOR.ORG" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <010208161600.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG> RETRIEVE: rfc DOC-ID: rfc3058 --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="rfc3058.txt"; site="ftp.isi.edu"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="in-notes" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <010208161600.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22260 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:25:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from srvmail (netfinity.advanced-film.de [212.14.64.181]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22253 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:25:27 -0800 (PST) From: b4h443@arabia.com Received: from mis.trebley.com ([63.46.223.58]) by srvmail with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.1600); Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:47:43 +0100 Message-ID: <0000072c2691$00006638$00005531@mailhost.ggtech.com> To: <2d477k5wy31k2bc4xd@atlantic-line.fr> Subject: Brand New E-Mail pager for FR-EE! Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:31:10 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Reply-To: b4h443@arabia.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2001 20:47:44.0125 (UTC) FILETIME=[38656AD0:01C09147] 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> Brand New E-Mail pager for FREE! No long term contract No activation fee No big prepayment of airtime No credit check PAGING AMERICA is going to give you absolutely Free the Brand new Motorola Accessmate E-Mail display pager. This is the top of the line PCS technology pager made today. This side viewable display pager has a retail value of $189.00and comes with its own e-mail address so you can receive your e-mails as well as alpha-numeric and numeric messages instantly where ever you are. Your new e-mail pager has features like 50,000 character memory, message time stamping, automatic garbled message correction, beeps or vibrates, incandescent backlight, saved message folder, a unique never out of range feature that allows your pager to retrieve messages sent earlier when your pager was out of range or turned completely off. You can also receive weather, news and sports .The Motorola e-mail pager is very small and uses only a single double A battery. All we ask before we ship you your Free pager is for you to allow us to provide the airtime for you. There is no long term contract or credit check. Airtime is month to month and can be cancelled at any time. This pager will comes pre-programmed with its own e-mail address as well as a local telephone number to receive numeric pages. This pager comes with a complete 30 day money back guarantee, if after receiving this pager you're not completely happy, send it back and receive a full refund. For immediate delivery call Paging America at toll free at 877-699-8545 Brand New E-Mail pager for FREE! Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16893 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:39:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hki-cesium1.fin.sonerazed.net (hki-smtp-1.fin.sonerazed.net [213.28.116.17]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16889 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:39:43 -0800 (PST) From: bigjoe@japan.com Received: from [63.24.176.238] by hki-cesium1.fin.sonerazed.net (InterMail vK.4.02.00.00 201-232-116 license 73185894472d214f558e80011438392a) with SMTP id <20010207004122.KMQO8208.hki-cesium1@[63.24.176.238]>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:41:22 +0200 Received: from kili.otago.ac.nz by 1Cust238.tnt1.irving2.tx.da.uu.net with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:40:26 -0600 Message-ID: <00005cb6229d$00006337$000045c0@kili.otago.ac.nz> To: <fhjtgnhzsuygt65mkn462c@telmex.net.mx> Subject: Brand New E-Mail pager for FR-EE! 17856 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:40:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Reply-To: bigjoe@japan.com 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> pager made today. This side viewable display pager has a retail value of $189.00and comes with its own e-mail address so you can receive your e-mails as well as alpha-numeric and numeric messages instantly where ever you are. Your new e-mail pager has features like 50,000 character memory, message time stamping, automatic garbled message correction, beeps or vibrates, incandescent backlight, saved message folder, a unique never out of range feature that allows your pager to retrieve messages sent earlier when your pager was out of range or turned completely off. You can also receive weather, news and sports .The Motorola e-mail pager is very small and uses only a single double A battery. All we ask before we ship you your Free pager is for you to allow us to provide the airtime for you. There is no long term contract or credit check. Airtime is month to month and can be cancelled at any time. This pager will comes pre-programmed with its own e-mail address as well as a local telephone number to receive numeric pages. This pager comes with a complete 30 day money back guarantee, if after receiving this pager you're not completely happy, send it back and receive a full refund. For immediate delivery call Paging America at toll free at 877-699-8546 Brand New E-Mail pager for FREE! No long term contract No activation fee No big prepayment of airtime No credit check PAGING AMERICA is going to give you absolutely Free the Brand new Motorola Accessmate E-Mail display pager. This is the top of the line PCS technology Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26130 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.hosokawa.co.jp (IDENT:qmailr@[202.229.20.29]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA26126 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:09:06 -0800 (PST) From: bigjoe@japan.com Received: (qmail 26277 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 01:16:39 -0000 Received: from 1cust30.tnt1.irving2.tx.da.uu.net (HELO 1Cust30.tnt1.irving2.tx.da.uu.net??63.24.176.30?) (63.24.176.30) by sorc3r3r.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 01:16:39 -0000 Received: from mailhost.telematics.com by 1Cust30.tnt1.irving2.tx.da.uu.net with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:14:07 -0600 Message-ID: <00004fc164d6$00007840$000026f9@mailhost.telematics.com> To: <Undisclosed.Recipients> Subject: Brand New E-Mail pager for FR-EE! 9977 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:14:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Reply-To: bigjoe@japan.com 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> No big prepayment of airtime No credit check PAGING AMERICA is going to give you absolutely Free the Brand new Motorola Accessmate E-Mail display pager. This is the top of the line PCS technology pager made today. This side viewable display pager has a retail value of $189.00and comes with its own e-mail address so you can receive your e-mails as well as alpha-numeric and numeric messages instantly where ever you are. Your new e-mail pager has features like 50,000 character memory, message time stamping, automatic garbled message correction, beeps or vibrates, incandescent backlight, saved message folder, a unique never out of range feature that allows your pager to retrieve messages sent earlier when your pager was out of range or turned completely off. You can also receive weather, news and sports .The Motorola e-mail pager is very small and uses only a single double A battery. All we ask before we ship you your Free pager is for you to allow us to provide the airtime for you. There is no long term contract or credit check. Airtime is month to month and can be cancelled at any time. This pager will comes pre-programmed with its own e-mail address as well as a local telephone number to receive numeric pages. This pager comes with a complete 30 day money back guarantee, if after receiving this pager you're not completely happy, send it back and receive a full refund. For immediate delivery call Paging America at toll free at 877-699-8546 Brand New E-Mail pager for FREE! No long term contract No activation fee Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29224 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:39:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29220 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:39:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamma (user-33qt49g.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.145.48]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA23764 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:46:10 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: <dick@8760.com> From: "Dick Brooks" <dick@8760.com> To: <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: SFL and NSS interoperability Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:41:51 -0600 Message-ID: <NDBBIOBLMLCDOHCHIKMGGECPFDAA.dick@8760.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHEENMDLAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> 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> Does anyone know if interop testing has been performed between the S/MIME SFL and Mozilla's Network Security Services [1]? The current interop matrix [2] doesn't mention NSS, so I'm assuming the answer is no. Has anyone informally done any interop testing between NSS and SFL? If so, would you like to share your experiences. [1] http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/ [2] http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/interop-matrix.html Thanks, Dick Brooks Group 8760 110 12th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 dick@8760.com 205-250-8053 Fax: 205-250-8057 http://www.8760.com/ InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23704 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.eris.dera.gov.uk (ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk [128.98.1.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA23693 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6937 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 15:55:21 -0000 Received: from cray.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk) (128.98.2.7) by ens0.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 15:55:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 22206 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 15:55:21 -0000 Received: from wottaway.eris.dera.gov.uk (HELO wottaway) (128.98.10.192) by mailhost.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 15:55:21 -0000 From: "William Ottaway" <w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> To: <ietf-smime@imc.org> Subject: Differences between DOMSEC 07 and 08 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:58:53 -0000 Message-ID: <NABBJNEAKNOGJBHIOCBHEENMDLAA.w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 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> Hi, Differences between DOMSEC 07 and DOMSEC 08 1) A few typos. 2) Russ Housley's comments made in message "Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-domsec-07.txt" 9th January 2001. Including extra text else where in the draft to support some of these comments. 3) Added text in section 5, point 3) a), sub point five, "If local policy requires the message to be encrypted using S/MIME encryption before leaving the domain then encapsulate ...". Also, added the paragraph: - "If local policy does not require the message to be encrypted using S/MIME encryption but there is an envelopedData at a lower level within the message then the 'domain signature' MUST be encapsulated by an envelopedData as described above" This is because a MLA will strip off the outer signatures down to the enveloped data thereby removing the domain signature. Also added the paragraph: - "An example when it may not be local policy to require S/MIME encryption is when there is a link crypto present." 4) Section 5 point 5) added the paragraph: - "If local policy does not require the message to be encrypted using S/MIME encryption but there is an envelopedData at a lower level within the message then the 'domain signature'MUST be encapsulated by an envelopedData as described above" 5) Section 5.1. Added the statement: - "All of the signedData objects are valid and none of them are a domain signature. If a signedData object was a domain signature then it would not be necessary to validate any further signedData objects." 6) Section 5.1, examples 4) and 6). Added text to cover situation where local policy does not require S/MIME encryption. 7) Section 5.1. A new example 7) to show how a message with two envelopedData objects is handled. Bill "The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s). For those other than the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful." ____________________________________________________ William Ottaway BSc Hons CEng MBCS, Woodward B009, Tel: +44 (0) 1684 894079 DERA Malvern, Fax: +44 (0) 1684 896660 St. Andrews Road, email: w.ottaway@eris.dera.gov.uk Malvern, Worcs, WR14 3PS All opinions are my own. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09699 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA09695 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07150; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:06:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102021306.IAA07150@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 08:06:45 -0500 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> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group of the IETF. Title : Domain Security Services using S/MIME Author(s) : T. Dean, W. Ottaway Filename : draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt Pages : 8 Date : 01-Feb-01 This document describes how the S/MIME protocol can be processed and generated by a number of components of a communication system, such as message transfer agents, guards and gateways to deliver security services. These services are collectively referred to as 'Domain Security Services'. The mechanisms described in this document are designed to solve a number of interoperability problems and technical limitations that arise when different security domains wish to communicate securely, for example when two domains use incompatible messaging technologies such as X.400 series and SMTP/MIME, or when a single domain wishes to communicate securely with one of its members residing on an untrusted domain. The scenarios covered by this document are domain to domain, individual to domain and domain to individual communications. This document is also applicable to organisations and enterprises that have internal PKIs which are not accessible by the outside world, but wish to interoperate securely using the S/MIME protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010201080722.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-smime-domsec-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010201080722.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart--
- Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Bonatti, Chris
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport William Ottaway
- Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Bonatti, Chris
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport William Ottaway
- Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Bonatti, Chris
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Jim Schaad
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport William Ottaway
- Re: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Bonatti, Chris
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport William Ottaway
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Russ Housley
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport William Ottaway
- RE: Certs-only Mechanism for X.400 Transport Blake Ramsdell