Re: [lamps] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07.txt> (Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message Specification) to Proposed Standard

I just read the whole draft and have the following comments.  Overall, the
draft seems to be in excellent shape.

I apologize if any of these were discussed earlier in the process, before I
started following this draft.  More than happy to create a pull request with
the changes once I get some feedback on these.

Section 2.1:

Is it worth adding "SHOULD support SHA-3" ?

Section 2.2:

"NIST is unable to provide the seeds that were
   used to create their standardized curves, this means that there is a
   section of the community which believes that there might be a back
   door to these curves."

This is a comma splice; recommend changing the comma to semi-colon.

"there is only a requirement for curve in the sending agent list"

I think "only a requirement for ONE curve in the sending agent list" was
meant.

Section 2.7.2. "All algorithms that use 112-bit keys are considered by many
to be weak encryption."

Is the LENGTH of the key, or the STRENGTH of the key intended?

If the former, are there other examples of 112-bit keys other than two key
3DES (~80 bits of strength)?
If not, why not say two key 3DES to be explicit?

If the latter, what's the rationale for considering 112 bits of strength
weak for symmetric algorithms in a standard where RSA-2048 is considered
strong?

I don't find "considered by many" to be a useful statement.  After all, the
world is considered by many to be flat.

-Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spasm [mailto:spasm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 5:21 PM
> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org; lamps-chairs@ietf.org;
> ekr@rtfm.com; housley@vigilsec.com; spasm@ietf.org
> Subject: [lamps] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07.txt>
> (Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message
> Specification) to Proposed Standard
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
> PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: -
> 'Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
>    Message Specification'
>   <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07.txt> as Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-04-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent
> to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the
> Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

Re: [lamps] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07.txt> (Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message Specification) to Proposed Standard

Attachment: smime.p7s