idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-smime-v31cert-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 117 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Abstract section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 31: '...the DSS and Diffie-Hellman as the MUST...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 61: '...cate issuer. A receiving agent MUST be...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 67: '... receiving agent MAY be capable of ver...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to mention RFC 2119. The boilerplate contains a reference [MUSTSHOULD], but that reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 17, 2001) is 8373 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? 'SMIMEV3CERT' on line 77 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'MUSTSHOULD' on line 81 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'DSS' on line 79 looks like a reference Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet Draft Author: Blake Ramsdell, 2 draft-ietf-smime-v31cert-00.txt Tumbleweed Communications 3 November 17, 2000 4 Expires May 17, 2001 6 S/MIME Version 3.1 Certificate Profile Addendum 8 Status of this memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all 11 provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 13 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task 14 Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 15 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 18 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 19 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 20 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 22 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 23 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 25 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 28 1. Overview 30 In light of the expiration of the primary RSA patent, it is proposed 31 that the RSA algorithm replace the DSS and Diffie-Hellman as the MUST 32 implement algorithms in the S/MIME profile. This draft will describe 33 only the proposed changes to the S/MIME Version 3 Certificate Handling 34 RFC [SMIMEV3CERT], and the rest of that RFC will remain identical. 36 1.1 Terminology 38 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 39 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 40 document are to be interpreted as described in [MUSTSHOULD]. 42 1.2 Discussion of This Draft 44 This draft is being discussed on the "ietf-smime" mailing list. 45 To subscribe, send a message to: 46 ietf-smime-request@imc.org 47 with the single word 48 subscribe 49 in the body of the message. There is a Web site for the mailing list 50 at . 52 2. Changes to the S/MIME Version 3 Certificate Handling RFC 54 The following changes to are proposed to [SMIMEV3CERT]: 56 1. Section 4.3 is replaced with the following: 58 4.3 Certificate and CRL Signing Algorithms 60 Certificates and Certificate-Revocation Lists (CRLs) are 61 signed by the certificate issuer. A receiving agent MUST be 62 capable of verifying the signatures on certificates and CRLs 63 made with md2WithRSAEncryption, md5WithRSAEncryption and sha- 64 1WithRSAEncryption signature algorithms with key sizes from 65 512 bits to 2048 bits described in [PKCS#1V2]. 67 A receiving agent MAY be capable of verifying the signatures 68 on certificates and CRLs made with id-dsa-with-sha1 [DSS]. 70 3. Security Considerations 72 The security considerations are the same as for [SMIMEV3CERT]. 73 Insert text about PKCS #1 v1.5 problems. 75 A. References 77 [SMIMEV3CERT] "S/MIME Version 3 Certificate Handling", RFC 2632 79 [DSS] NIST FIPS PUB 186, "Digital Signature Standard", 18 May 1994. 81 [MUSTSHOULD] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 82 Levels", RFC 2119 84 [PKCS#1V2], "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.0", 85 RFC 2437 87 B. Acknowledgements 89 91 C. Changes from last draft 93 Changed name to put it in the working group, as opposed to an 94 individual submission. 96 Added placeholder text to section 3 explaining problems with PKCS #1 97 v1.5. 99 D. Author�s address 101 Blake Ramsdell 102 Tumbleweed Communications 103 17720 NE 65th St Ste 201 104 Redmond, WA 98052 105 +1 425 376 0225 106 blake.ramsdell@tumbleweed.com