Subject: RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 02:54:09 (NZST)

Andrew Ferguson <[email-masked]> writes:

>I believe it should say SHOULD (definitly not MUST) and perhaps to be precise
>refer to the newly ratified Wassenaar agreement,  eg : "except where
>prohibited under the Wassenaar Agreement" which will cover export and import
>into and from various countries.

Adding this wouldn't make much sense, Wassenaar isn't a treaty or agreement but
an arrangement, and has no binding force on anyone, so Wassenaar itself doesn't
prohibit anything.  As the Wassenaar articles say, implementation is purely a
matter of national legislation and policy.

Peter.

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:11:35 -0700

Can we PLEASE drop this thread? It makes no sense for a couple of reasons:

- The spec already has passed the IESG. Done. If you want to debate this, 
you have to issue a new spec and argue about that. (I'm not suggesting 
this, just saying that is what you have to do.)

- When we chartered this WG, we were told we had to use strong crypto. 
Period. We agreed.

- The arguments that "people won't produce this" have already been proven 
to be false in the marketplace already.

I will say again that I believe that it was inappropriate for this tread to 
be started **after** the specs were approved by the IESG and **years** 
after the discussion had gotten consensus in the WG.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium