Subject: [smime] New ID of potential interest

From: "Herzog, Jonathan - 0668 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:13:55 -0400

I would like to inform the SMIME working group of a newly-submitted Internet
Draft that may be of interest:

 A set-key attribute for symmetric-key packages
 draft-herzog-setkey-00

 Abstract

   A set-key is a symmetric key (or set of keys) associated with an
   immutable set of participants.  This document defines a set-key
   attribute for use in the CMS-based symmetric-key package structure
   defined in in RFC XXXX. {{{ RFC Editor, please replace XXXX with the
   number assigned to draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat when it is
   published. }}}

 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herzog-setkey/

We welcome all comments and reviews.

Thank you.

-- 
Jonathan Herzog
Technical Staff, MIT Lincoln Laboratory
[email-masked]

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:07:23 -0700

A couple of questions and comments on this document

1.  Is there a reason not to make the sequence require at least two elements
for a union and an intersection?

2.  For 'union' and 'intersection' I would prefer "This sequence MUST be
non-empty." To be rendered as "The sequence of SetKeyParticipentSet values
MUST be non-empty."  The first time I read this I mixed up the ASN.1
sequence with the contents of the result of the union.

3.  Given that we are discussion SETs.  Are there any reasons not to impose
some restrictions on those who create SetKetParticipentSet values so that
they are not every empty?  Thus an intersection SHOULD NOT result in an
empty result.

4.  Are there any locations (such as SetMember) where you one should
explicitly state that this field may be expanded at a later date with
additional values that may need to be recognized as being present, even if
they are not evaluated.

5.  When doing an intersection, does none need to understand the value of
SetMember, or can the evaluation be done on the ASN.1 encoding of the
SetMember.   Specifically would one need to understand that a certificate
containing a specific public key be identified EITHER by the pub key info or
by the issuer/serial?

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Herzog, Jonathan - 0668 - MITLL
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Khazan, Roger - 0668 - MITLL
> Subject: [smime] New ID of potential interest
> 
> 
> I would like to inform the SMIME working group of a newly-submitted
> Internet Draft that may be of interest:
> 
>  A set-key attribute for symmetric-key packages  draft-herzog-setkey-00
> 
>  Abstract
>