RE: PKCS#7 in PKIX-3

[Peter Whittaker <pww@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> I think we need a 
>>credible commitment by the PKCS editor, that the new version of PKCS#7 
>>will be stable by the end of February 1997.  This commitment must be 
>>provided by the end of the first week in January 1997.  However, this 
>>time-scale seems unrealistic. 
> 
>Why not just incorporate the required portions of PKCS into PKIX?  The
>clarity 
>and openness of the specifications would be greatly improved.  There should
>be 
>no reason to rely on PKCS (a vendor controlled document) in the open IETF 
>process. 

During the SAAG review at the San Jose IETF, it was mentioned that the
IESG may publish the PKCS documents as informational RFC's:  the owners
of the PKCS documents had indicated their willingness/desire to submit
them.  While the PKCS editors would maintain control over document
content (unless the PKCS documents became standards-track), IESG rules
would require new RFC numbers for new versions of the documents, which
would at least make it possible for us to all refer unambiguously to the
same version of a particular PKCS document.

I don't know what the status of this is.  Would the publication of the
PKCS documents as RFC's address your concern?

pww