Re: stuff in ITU-T SG17 meeting relating to X509, cms, and S/MME

Hi Stephen,

You are being fair.

The responsible Rapporteur Group (Q11/17) consists
of essentially two people - who also serve as the rapporteur
and associate rapporteur, and editors of nearly all the work.
They propose and approve their own work items, then
evolve them.  There is an eMail list, but it is little used.

The basis for the CMS work item is attached and the
record of the approval is found in the report which
they prepared and approved in Sept 2013.
>
> oCryptographic Message Syntax (CMS): The purpose of this new work item 
> is to provide some enhancements to the existing CMS protocol and to 
> eliminate old ASN.1 features. The justification document can be found 
> in TD 0644. Cryptographic Message Syntax is used in many applications 
> so the meeting decided to send a liaison (TD 646) to ISO/IEC/JTC 1/SC 
> 27, ISO/TC 68/SC 2 and IETF/SMIME Working Group.
>
Liaison notes were sent to the indicated organizations twice now. Only
SC 27 replied stating:
> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27/WG 2 also thanks ITU-T SG 17 for informing SC 
> 27/WG 2 of a new work item regarding Cryptographic Message Syntax 
> (CMS). SC 27/WG 2 would like to inform ITU-T SG 17 that SC 27/WG 2 has 
> established a Study Period on Cryptographic formatting to investigate 
> pre-existing formats, including CMS.
In Jan 2014, Q11/17 reviewed and approved its first
draft, noting:
> The first draft of X.cms has been reviewed during the meeting. The 
> revised draft can be found in TD 940 Rev.1. This Recommendation should 
> be part of the X.890 series (Generic applications of ASN.1) and the 
> meeting proposes to have a common text with ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 (new 
> part of ISO/IEC 24824 standard) using the fast track procedure of 
> ISO/IEC JTC 1 after Consent 

It's not apparent who the editor here is in touch with
or not, but it's worth noting that there is a SG27 effort
of some kind underway as well.  It is what it is, and as
you note, the question revolves around whether it's
irrelevant enough to be harmless.

--tony


On 2014-09-17 2:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> My question is: am I being unfair in the above or are the
> authors of that actually in touch with folks who implement
> CMS?
>
> Other folks - if you care about ITU-T work that could overlap
> with IETF work or with your code, you might want to take a
> look here. (Or decide to just ignore the whole thing as
> irrelevant enough to be harmless I guess.)

_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix