Subject: RE: WG Last Call: cmsalg

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 13:50:06 -0400

Jim:

As you pointed out in a message last week, the ASN.1 modules in both 
rfc2630bis and cmsalg still include IMPORT statements from ITU-T 
documents.  You recommended that these IMPORT statements reference the 
ASN.1 modules in the PKIX documents instead.  I did not make this change 
because there are no PKIX documents that include the definition of v1 
attribute certificates.

As I see it, we have three choices:
1.  Do nothing.  Continue to IMPORT from ITU-T documents.
2.  Use PKIX for everything except for v1 attribute certificates; IMPORT v1 
attribute certificates from ITU-T.
3.  Use PKIX for everything except for v1 attribute certificates; define v1 
attribute certificates in the rfc2630bis appendix.

I prefer either 1 or 3, so that all of the IMPORTS come from the same class 
of documents (RFC or ITU-T Recommendation).

If we choose 1, then no further action is needed.

If we choose 3, then I would like to make these editorial changes when any 
other IETF Last Call comments are handled.  I consider this an editorial 
change since it does not impact any implementation.  No bits on the wire 
are impacted.

Russ

At 07:43 PM 8/21/2001 -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
>[JLS]  I would request that the PKIX module be used rather than the
>X.509 since that is more widely available.

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:56:07 -0700

Russ,

I would have a strong prefrence for either 2 or 3.  (Actually 3 would be
nice since I would then have the ASN.1 for a v1 attribute certificate.)
I disagree that this is a simple editorial change as we need to get
compiles dones of the ASN.1 before it is finished and I don't want to
try that in the 48 hour editors area.  In the past changes to the ASN.1
modules have been deemed non-editorial changes.

jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Housley, Russ [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:50 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: WG Last Call: cmsalg
> 
> 
> Jim:
>

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:29:49 -0400

Jim:

I would certainly get the ASN.1 checked to make sure that it compiles 
before posting the updated draft in response to IETF Last Call.

Alternative #3 is the only one that we both like.  I would like to hear 
from others.

Russ

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:57:26 -0700

At 5:29 PM -0400 10/8/01, Housley, Russ wrote:
>I would certainly get the ASN.1 checked to make sure that it 
>compiles before posting the updated draft in response to IETF Last 
>Call.
>
>Alternative #3 is the only one that we both like.  I would like to 
>hear from others.

OK, I'll chime in. Why is this the job of S/MIME? Shouldn't that 
importing be being done in PKIX? Isn't it at least as valuable to 
them as it is to us?

We could get into a silly state where some PKIX documents refer to an 
S/MIME RFC because it has the v1 ASN.1 they want in it.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 17:37:48 -0700

Paul,

No PKIX document should ever need to reference the v1 attribute ASN.1.
The problem is that the current attribute certificate draft in the PKIX
group uses the v2 attribute certificate ASN.1, while CMS originally
referenced the v1 attribute certificate ASN.1.  I don't think that
anybody actually implemented anything that uses the v1 attr
certificates, but Russ obviously feels that the ASN.1 should be
available in the event that anybody ever needs it under the same
availability as the rest of the ASN.1.  (This is not my position, since
I don't think anybody implemented and uses it, and it is now marked
obsolete, it could be omitted entirely and those people who need it can
search for it.)  Thus I don't think that anybody would ever end up
needing to refer to the ASN.1 unless they already are, and no PKIX
documents that I know of do so.

Jim

> From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 4:57 PM
> To: Housley, Russ; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]