Subject: [AAA-WG]: The Remaining Issues

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:56:37 -0700

All,

I believe that we are nearly done!

Here's an update on the remaining issues:

Issue 94: I am not the editor of this spec, so once I hear from Bernard
          on whether he's accepted or rejected the issue I will formally
          close this one.

Issue 123: My current inclination is to reject this issue, but I am waiting
           for WG input before proceeding

Issue 147: This issue has been accepted, but I am waiting for a reference
           to WEP-128. If I cannot get this before I wish to submit, my
           goal is to take care of this during the 48 hour last call I
           will get from the RFC editor. However, I will keep this issue
           open as a reminder.

Issue 150: Steven and I both agree that adding an S/MIME & CMS introduction
           is really unnecessary, and we propose rejecting this issue. I
           am waiting for WG input before proceeding.

Issue 153: Steven and I both agree that the RSA key length is encoded in the
           certificate, and therefore doesn't need to be mentioned in this
           spec. Diameter CMS implementations should be able to handle existing
           cert formats, which have a set of acceptable RSA key lengths. 
           I am waiting for the author of this issue to get back to me on
           whether or not he agrees.

So, in order for me to go ahead with submitting the I-Ds to the secretariat,
I need some guidance from the WG on issues 147 and 150. As I previously
stated, my inclination is to reject them, but I am not in a position to
reject them without input from the WG.

So please help me get this documents out, and send e-mail.

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:07:56 -0700

> I need some guidance from the WG on issue 150. As I previously
> stated, my inclination is to reject it, but I am not in a position to

---

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:27:49 +0300

>            am waiting for WG input before proceeding.

Well, after reading the issue and the exchanged e-mails, I too started
to wonder why section 6.2 uses CMS directly, and 6.1 via S/MIME.
Is this really so, or does this part need clarification? Or should I
read the document again, carefully? ;-)

I agree though that we don't need an introduction to S/MIME and
CMS in this document. But some statement at the beginning on
why CMS was selected might be in order. Say, at the end of 1.0,
add "The Diameter CMS application provides end-to-end
security within a Diameter network involving proxies. It
leverages Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS),
an application layer encapsulation format. CMS is
widely used, and also forms the basis for the secure MIME
format (S/MIME)."

Jari