Subject: draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-26.txt

From: "David A. Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:38:04 -0400

All,

I have just submitted draft 26 of SCVP for posting.  The draft should be 
available soon, but in the meantime, I have posted a diff file 
highlighting the differences between drafts 24 and 26 (the only 
difference between drafts 24 and 25 was the correction of a 
typographical error in section 3.6).  The diff file is available at 
http://csrc.nist.gov/pki/documents/PKIX/wdiff_draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-24_to_26.html.

Drafts 24 and 26 differ in the following places:

1) Section 3: corrected cross-reference ("3.10" replaced by "3.11").

2) Section 3.2.4.2.3 (Name Validation Algorithm):  Matching rules for 
use with id-kp-serverAuth are now specified in the document rather than 
referring to the matching rules in RFC 2818 [HTTP-TLS].  (RFC 2818 is an 
Informational RFC and so SCVP could not include a normative reference to 
that document).

3) Section 3.6: "requestorName" replaced with "responderName".  (This 
was the typographical error that was corrected in draft 25.)

4) Section 4: A new sentence was added to clarify that when a protected 
response is required, the SCVP server must use SignedData or 
AuthenticatedData even if the response is being sent over a protected 
transport (e.g., TLS).

5) Section 11.1 (Normative References):  The reference to RFC 2818 was 
deleted.

None of these changes to the document result in any changes to the protocol.

Dave