RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-certcapa-02.txt

["Jim Schaad" <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stefan,

A couple of small comments on the draft, although I believe that it could go
to last call in its current state.

1.  In section 2 you have the statement 'Algorithms should be ordered by
preference.'  As I general rule I attempt to avoid the use of must, should
and may when writing documents to avoid confusion with MUST, SHOULD and MAY
(did he just forget to capatilize it?).  A better statement might be
'Algorithms are expected to be be ordered by preference'.

2.  I would like to see the addition of a paragraph describing the types of
capabilities that are expected to be listed.  It seems obious that bulk
encryption algorithms are listed as, potentially, are key encryption
algorithms (consider RSA-OAEP as an example).  However it is not clear about
some of the other potential capabililties.  What about signature and hash
algorithms?  What about MAC algorithms?  What about S/MIME specifics such as
id-cap-preferBinaryInside?

3.  RFC 2199 is a reference, but the text refering to it is absent.

4.  RFC 3280 is referenced only from the abstract.  Duplicate text should be
placed in section 1.


jim