Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-06.txt : Comments

From: "Pandey, Arun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 16:18:18 +0530

Hi,

1) In the draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-06.txt the contents of Section
2.2.1 are
   mere copy of Section 2.2. The Section heading of 2.2.1. is "Carrying
Plaintext 
   MIME objects as X.400 Content", whereas the content in the section is
about 
   "Carrying CMS object as X.400 Content". Could this please be corrected.

2) In section 2.3 "Carrying S/MIME as IPMS Body Parts", in the following 
   sentence 'id-ep-content' should be replaced by 'id-et-content':

   The direct-reference field of the body part MUST include the OID formed
by the 
   concatenation of the id-ep-content value and the following CMS-defined
value.

   i.e. it should be:
   The direct-reference field of the body part MUST include the OID formed
by the 
   concatenation of the id-et-content value and the following CMS-defined
value.

Best Regards
Arun Pandey

---

From: "Bonatti, Chris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:49:58 -0400

Arun,

  You seem to be correct on both counts.  I will try to correct and
repost.

  If anybody thinks this isn't correct, please don't be shy.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Pandey, Arun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 06:48
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-06.txt : Comments

Hi, 
   "Carrying CMS object as X.400 Content". Could this please be
corrected. 

   sentence 'id-ep-content' should be replaced by 'id-et-content': 
   The direct-reference field of the body part MUST include the OID
formed by the 
   concatenation of the id-ep-content value and the following
CMS-defined value. 
   i.e. it should be: 
   The direct-reference field of the body part MUST include the OID
formed by the 
   concatenation of the id-et-content value and the following
CMS-defined value. 
Best Regards 
Arun Pandey

---

From: "Bonatti, Chris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:28:29 -0400

I have just reposted the x400transport draft incorporating corrections
to the errata noted by Arun Pandey.  I don't know how I managed to
create the bug in 2.2.1, but I was able to recover some once-upon-a-time
text from about a year ago that I think addresses the issue.  The other
concern that Arun pointed out was a simple typo, but with potential
interoperability ramifications.

This issue of the draft also rolls back the names of the smime-type and
EIT values from "certificate management" to "certs-only".  This is to
align with rfc2633bis and rfc2632bis which have decided to stick with
certs-only to avoid confusion in backward compatibility.  Strictly, we
could have stuck with an EIT called certificate management since there
is no backward compatibility impact to that.  However, I think that
would have had a high confusion quotient so I rolled the whole thing
back.

Btw, the -06 issue of x400transport (which I neglected to introduce when
it came out) added the smime-type and EIT for the compressed-data
content type as per April's discussion on the WG list.

The x400wrap draft was updated to issue -06 merely to refresh it in the
I-D repository.  I don't plan to reissue an -07 of this unless there is
a problem noted.

Chris