Should the CMS reference in section 11.1 be updated to RFC 3852?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 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
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature