Subject: RE: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3278-update-02

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:08:17 -0400

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alfred HÎnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:39 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: draft-ietf-smime-rfc3278-update-02

<snip>

>> All,
>> 
>> Does anybody think it would be clearer to resubmit this to be a bis 
>> draft (i.e., obsolete 3278) instead of an update draft?
>> Originally, the draft just updated the ECDSA 224-512 and SHA2 
>> algorithms, but now it updates most of the sections in RFC3278.
>> I think it might be clearer to just obsolete RFC3278.
>> 
>> spt
>
>When it comes to security, unnecessary complexity is evil.
>And complexity sometimes starts with the specification(s).
>
>In this case, the current draft already is an excellent 
>example of how documents updating earlier specifications 
>should be written to avoid any ambiguity related to what in 
>detail is updated in which manner.
>
>Nevertheless, I strongly support the idea to merge the still 
>valid parts of RFC 3278 with this draft, to obtain a single 
>concise replacement document.  There are lots of examples 
>where RFCs have been superseded by newer ones for much less 
>substantial updates.

I haven't heard an objection to this so I'm going to submit a new -00 ID
that is going to obsolete 3278 as opposed to update it. The current ID will
die on the vine.

>A unified new document would also allow to update all the Refs 
>in 3278 (including RFC-to-be 5280), split these into Normative 
>and Informative, and adapt the boilerplate matter to the new 
>ISOC/IETF position on IPR stuff.
>
>But when this step is undertaken, the next question immediately
>arises:  Why not also going from Informational to Standards Track?

Since there's IPR with ECC all the IETF IDs/RFCs that deal with ECC are
Informational.

spt