Re: [lamps] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10.txt

Daniel:

I am confused by your comment. Section 2.1 lists the mandatory-to-implement hash functions, Section 2.2 lists the mandatory-to-implement signature algorithms, Section 2.3 lists the mandatory-to-implement key establishment algorithms, and Section 2.7 lists the mandatory-to-implement encryption algorithms.

Russ

> On Jun 20, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
>  
> I am fine with the update and appreciated the response to my comments. Though this might be done elsewhere, I believe it would be good to have a companion document with cryptographic recommendation and mandatory to implement algorithms.
> Yours, 
> Daniel
>  
> From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:11 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com <mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com>>
> Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>>; Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com <mailto:daniel.migault@ericsson.com>>
> Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10.txt
>  
> Thanks. I will take a look this week.
>  
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com <mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com>> wrote:
> EKR,
> 
> This should address the last comment that you pointed out from Daniel.  I used his suggested language so I doubt he is going to object.
> 
> I believe that you should be able to advance to ballot now
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> <internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 6:28 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com <mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com>>; Blake Ramsdell <blaker@gmail.com <mailto:blaker@gmail.com>>; Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com <mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Jim Schaad and posted to the IETF repository.
> 
> Name:           draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis
> Revision:       10
> Title:          Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message Specification
> Document date:  2018-06-19
> Group:          lamps
> Pages:          58
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10.txt <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10.txt>
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis/>
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10>
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis>
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10>
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document defines Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
>    (S/MIME) version 4.0.  S/MIME provides a consistent way to send and
>    receive secure MIME data.  Digital signatures provide authentication,
>    message integrity, and non-repudiation with proof of origin.
>    Encryption provides data confidentiality.  Compression can be used to
>    reduce data size.  This document obsoletes RFC 5751.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org <mailto:Spasm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>