1 / 7

S/MIME CMS-X.400 Drafts: Status & Issues

S/MIME CMS-X.400 Drafts: Status & Issues. IETF #57 – S/MIME Working Group 15 July 2003 – Vienna, Austria. Chris Bonatti (IECA, Inc.) <BonattiC@ieca.com> Tel: (+1) 301-548-9569. Background.

omer
Download Presentation

S/MIME CMS-X.400 Drafts: Status & Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. S/MIME CMS-X.400 Drafts: Status & Issues IETF #57 – S/MIME Working Group15 July 2003 – Vienna, Austria Chris Bonatti (IECA, Inc.) <BonattiC@ieca.com> Tel: (+1) 301-548-9569

  2. Background • X.400 is an obvious additional market for CMS-based security, but some basic conventions are not standardized. • X400Wrap draft specifies how to protect X.400 content with CMS objects. • It is roughly analogous to RFC 2633 (Msg Spec) except it is focused on X.400 content. • X400Transport draft specifies how to package CMS objects for transport by X.400 MTAs. • The two drafts were separated to allow mixed use, and encourage use of RFC 822/MIME content in X.400 communities.

  3. Status of Drafts • These Internet drafts are in the following issues of publication: • draft-ietf-smime-x400wrap-07.txt 2003-JUN-29 • draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-08.txt 2003-JUN-29 • This latest issue of the drafts address comments from the Area Directors and IESG, and some errata noted by WG members during testing. • Provided drafts to solicit informal ITU-T/ ISO feedback(in parallel to our process).

  4. Changes to x400wrap-07 • In 2.2, changed the OID for the MUST signature algorithm from id-dsa to id-dsa-with-sha1. • Noted in testing between Nexor and FFI. • Aligns with common usage. • Corresponding change has been made to 2633bis. • In 2.6, added a SHOULD requirement for content encryption with AES. • As per mail list discussion • Also reflected in 2633bis.

  5. Changes to x400transport-08 • Revised Security Considerations section as per IESG guidance to more explicitly state: This specification introduces no new security concerns to the CMS or S/MIME models.

  6. Comments & Issues • 2.6 of 2633bis shows key size requirements for AES. Is this required? Is it worth slowing down the x400wrap draft?

  7. Way Forward • Continue to advance these drafts as Standards Track RFCs. • No need for a new LAST CALL perceived. • Watch for any ITU-T/ ISO feedback and raise any significant issues to the WG.

More Related