Subject: RE: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.t xt

From: Robert Zuccherato <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:01:59 -0500

John;

Actually, the [x942] reference points to:

[x942] E. Rescorla, "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method",
draft-ietf-smime-x942-0X.txt, work in progress.

Which was the Internet Draft for RFC 2631, not the X9.42 draft.  All of the
references are being updated to point to the appropriate RFCs.

	Robert.

> ----------
> From: 	John C. Kennedy[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, December 01, 1999 5:20 PM
> To: 	Robert Zuccherato; [email-masked]
> Cc: 	'Burt Kaliski'; 'Linn, John'
> Subject: 	RE: Working Group Last Call:
> draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.t xt
> 
> RE: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-small-subgroup-02.t
> xtRobert,
> 
> My concerns about alignment and attribution with the X9.42 draft stated
> recently on the mailing list are applicable here.  I suggest replacing
> [x942] with [RFC2631], or something similar. RFC 2631 is currently, and
> presumably will remain, the normative reference; not the ANSI draft.  Even
> if X9.42 ever becomes a standard, RFC2631 will continue to profile or
> otherwise approximate it but still remain the normative reference.
> 
> -John
> 
> 
>

---

From: "John C. Kennedy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:59:10 -0800

I understand what it was pointing to.  My suggestion was simply to change
the reference tag itself, not the reference.  Referencing RFC 2631 by
[x942] is misleading since the former is only a profiled approximation of
the latter.

Regards,

-John

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Robert Zuccherato [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 9:02 AM
  To: [email-masked]; 'John C. Kennedy'
  Subject: RE: Working Group Last Call:

  John;

  Which was the Internet Draft for RFC 2631, not the X9.42 draft.  All of
the references are being updated to point to the appropriate RFCs.

          Robert.

    ----------

    My concerns about alignment and attribution with the X9.42 draft
stated
    recently on the mailing list are applicable here.  I suggest replacing
    [x942] with [RFC2631], or something similar. RFC 2631 is currently,
and
    presumably will remain, the normative reference; not the ANSI draft.
Even
    if X9.42 ever becomes a standard, RFC2631 will continue to profile or
    otherwise approximate it but still remain the normative reference.

    -John