Kyle,
OK, then a different question. Is this supposed to be working group draft?
If it is:
1. When it was first brought to my attention I expressed concern that this
document was focused on a topic that isn't part of the charter of the
working group as far as I can tell. The IESG review you've experienced so
far is part of the concern that I and the security ADs have with the
document. In short, we haven't yet resolved the charter/topic question to
my satisfaction.
2. The document is improperly named for it to be a working group document.
It isn't showing up in the I-D tracker as a work product of this group.
Point 1 needs to be resolved, though, before this point should be addressed.
If it isn't:
1. It should be renamed to clearly identify it as an individual submission.
Document naming guidelines are described here:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
in the section titled "Submitting".
We can talk live about the scope and the charter at the meeting next week if
anyone happens to be coming to DC. Summaries will of course be shared here.
-Scott-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Meadors [mailto:kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:00 PM
> To: ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: changes to CEM message structure
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I was referring to the draft-ediint-certificate-exchange-00
> which I submitted last month. Russ Housley express some
> concerns this overlapped with efforts in PKIX. Dale Moberg
> spoke with Russ about implementing the
> pkcs7 certs-only type as the format for distributing the certificate.
>
> Kyle Meadors
> DGI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ediint@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Scott Hollenbeck
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 6:48 AM
> To: 'Kyle Meadors'; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: changes to CEM message structure
>
>
> Kyle,
>
> Which working group document is the proposal below referring
> to? The only document currently under consideration by the
> IESG is the AS2 document, and I can't find any mention of a
> CEMRequest element in that document.
>
> -Scott-
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kyle Meadors [mailto:kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:07 PM
> > To: ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: changes to CEM message structure
> >
> >
> >
> > Per the CEM draft review by the IETF area directors, the
> draft editors
> > were informed the need to modify the format of the digital
> certificate
> > distribution to the PKCS#7 SMIME certs-only media type
> since this is a
> > well established standard.
> >
> > Based on this, the draft editors would like to modify the
> CEM message
> > structure to something like this:
> >
> > Content-Type: Multpart/related; type="ediint-cert-exchange+xml";
> > boundary=foo
> > --foo
> > Content-Type: Ediint-cert-exchange+xml
> > [CEMRequest XML]
> > --foo
> > Content-Type: Application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=certs-only
> > Content-ID: <end-entity123@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [end-entity cert being exchanged]
> > --foo
> > Content-Type: Application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=certs-only
> > Content-ID: <ca-cert123@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [CA cert to complete the trust chain on the end-entity]
> > --foo--
> >
> > The CEMRequest XML would be modified. The <ds:X509Data>
> element would
> > be replaced with a new element, say <Content-Id>, which would
> > reference the MIME Content-ID of the certificate in the
> > multipart-related structure. No other parts of the XML body
> would need
> > to be altered.
> >
> > The use of multipart/related is a natural choice since this was the
> > future direction of the profile exchange described in
> section 5 of the
> > draft.
> >
> > Does the list have comments on this suggestion? Are there other
> > alternatives we should consider? Unless there is reservations about
> > this choice, the draft editors will implement this
> multipart/related
> > structure and resubmit the updated draft both to the EDIINT
> list and
> > the IETF area directors end of next week.
> >
> > Kyle Meadors
> > Program Manager
> > Drummond Group Inc.
> > 615.384.5006
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
>
>
>
|
