1 / 5

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

S/MIME CMS-X.400 Drafts: Status & Issues. IETF #55 – S/MIME Working Group 19 November 2002 – Atlanta, Georgia. Chris Bonatti (IECA, Inc.) <BonattiC@ieca.com> Tel: (+1) 301-548-9569. Background.

tiger
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 #55 – S/MIME Working Group19 November 2002 – Atlanta, Georgia 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 • Both of these Internet drafts are in their fifth issue of publication: • draft-ietf-smime-x400wrap-05.txt 2002-NOV-5 • draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-05.txt 2002-NOV-5 • This latest issue of the drafts address comments from the Area Directors and IESG, and subsequently from WG members.

  4. Comments & Issues • None outstanding.

  5. Way Forward • Release the -05 issue of the drafts. • Continue dialog with WG members to achieve closure on the header field protection mechanism. • Continue to advance these drafts as Standards Track RFCs. Attempt to deal with any criticism. • Provide drafts to Jim Craigie to solicit informal ITU-T/ ISO feedback (in parallel).

More Related