Francis, Thanks for your comments. The only one I feel like I should reply to is the comment on is 3.4.3.2: we do require SHA-256, which is a SHA2 algorithm, just not the others. Basically, we had to pick one and SHA-256 seemed like the one to go with. Technically, we could remove the paragraph because it's not really needed. For example, we point to RFC3370 and we don't have a paragraph explaining that we don't use SS-DH or PBKDF2.
Tim, I'll whip up another version after the IETF LC closes to save the editor some work. spt >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:21 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: review of draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-08.txt > >I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >comments you may receive. > > >Document: draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-08.txt >Reviewer: Francis Dupont >Review Date: 2008-11-06 >IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-13 >IESG Telechat date: unknown > >Summary: Ready > >Comments: a few editorial comments (i.e., to be handled by the >RFC Editor if no new version of the document is published for >another reason). > >Note I don't comment about the cryptographic strength >requirements even IMHO these should be handled by profiles >according to specific environment context, the document >specifying only the default (and minimum) profile (but the >document doesn't make the adoption of this idea impossible or >even hard, and if there was an agreement for following this >kind of way this should have been done before). > >Comment details: > - Discussion page 2: if this should be removed prior to >publication by the RFC editor it is better to mention it. > > - TOC page 3: Appendix C (Acknowledgments) is missing, same for > Authors' Addresses > > - 1.6 page 7: WithRSAEncrption -> WithRSAEncryption > > - 3.4.3.2 page 28: why SHA-2 algorithms are still not recommended? > (IMHO the paragraph still waits to be removed :-) > > - 7.1 page 38: I note an I-D (CMS-SHA2) is in the normative references > (not a problem, the publication of the document will just be defered > until the I-D is published) > > - 7.1 pages 38 and 39: two FIPS publications (FIPS180-3 and 186-3) are > marked as "draft". I don't know if this can be an issue... > > - Appendix A page 42: prefersBinaryInside -> preferBinaryInside > > - Appendix A page 43: receipentKeyId -> recipientKeyId > > - Appendix C page 44: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > - Author's Addresses page 44: Author's -> Authors' > >Regards > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >PS: congratulations for having got rid of RC2/40, this just >took 13 years... _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
