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

From: "Seth Hitchings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:30:33 -0400

Should the CMS reference in section 11.1 be updated to RFC 3852? 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of David A. Cooper
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:38 PM
To: pkix
Subject: draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-26.txt

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

---

From: "David A. Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:32:20 -0400

>Should the CMS reference in section 11.1 be updated to RFC 3852?
Seth,

Yes.  I believe that the [CMS] reference should be updated from 3369 to 
3852.  Also, the [UTF8] reference should be updated from 2279 to 3629 
and the [IKE] reference should be updated from 2409 to 4306.

Updating the [UTF8] and [IKE] should only affect the References section.

Updating the [CMS] reference will also require changing the ASN.1 in 
section 8 so that ContentInfo is imported from the 
CryptographicMessageSyntax2004 module rather than the 
CryptographicMessageSyntax, but I don't think that should cause any 
problems.

Dave

---

From: "David A. Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:51:08 -0400

All,

On Friday, I submitted draft 27 of SCVP for posting.  It contains the 
updated references mentioned below, but no other changes.  A diff file 
comparing drafts 26 and 27 is available at 
http://csrc.nist.gov/pki/documents/PKIX/wdiff_draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-26_to_27.html.

Dave

David A. Cooper wrote:

> Yes.  I believe that the [CMS] reference should be updated from 3369 
> to 3852.  Also, the [UTF8] reference should be updated from 2279 to 
> 3629 and the [IKE] reference should be updated from 2409 to 4306.
>