Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00.txt

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:23:41 -0500

Dear S/MIME WG Members:

This message announces Working Group Last Call for aes-keywrap.  The two 
authors have independently written implementations of the specification, 
and the implementations interoperate.  This indicates that the 
specification contains the necessary detail.

	Title		: AES Key Wrap Algorithm
	Author(s)	: J. Schaad, R. Housley
	Filename	: draft-ietf-smime-aes-keywrap-00.txt
	Date		: 06-Feb-02

The intent is to publish aes-keywrap as an Informational RFC.

Please review aes-keywrap, and post any comments to the [email-masked] 
mail list by Saturday, 23 February 2002.  Unless traffic on the mail list 
indicates otherwise, I will
send these to the IESG shortly after WG Last Call closes.

Russ

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:23:24 +0000

Russ,

I'm just wondering why these two -00 drafts, which don't seem to 
have much to do with the smime wg (e.g. they don't reference any 
other wg document), are being processed this way. Did I sleep for
a bit at the last meeting and miss the explanation?

My only possibly useful comment (not being able to review 48 
pages including binary samples in the time alloted) is that 
it'd be nice to allocate URIs for these wrapping algorithms 
as well as OIDs. Or did you expect the W3C XML Encryption 
group should do that? (Hope I don't cause some sort of process 
hell by suggesting that one rfc contain both the OIDs and 
URIs:-).

Regards,
Stephen.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:[email-masked]
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:01:20 -0500

Steve:

They were discussed in the presentation made by Jim Schaad on supporting 
AES in CMS.

The AES key wrap is needed when Diffie-Hellman key agreement (see RFC 2631) 
is used to generate a pairwise key-encryption key, then the key-encryption 
key is used to wrap the content-encryption key.

Russ

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:45:29 -0800

Steve,

> a bit at the last meeting and miss the explanation?

An additional note on the aes-keywrap draft.  This is a republish of a
document which is currently on the NIST web site, but not in a final
form.  They don't expect it to be final for a while and the AES draft
needs to have the key wrap document to proceed.

> hell by suggesting that one rfc contain both the OIDs and 

While I don't have a problem with this, I too can see the advantages,
the W3C is where the URIs are being standardized.  If they want to give
use the URIs, I would consider including these as part of the last call
comments.

> Stephen.

Jim