Re: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-01, section 5.4.4

I wasn't aware of this work until now, is there any plan to address the large
number of problems in CMP that make it almost impossible to create two
interoperable CMP implementations purely from the spec?  See for example
section 5.2 of:

https://www.usenix.org/conference/12th-usenix-security-symposium/plug-and-play-pki-pki-your-mother-can-use

(Given how fundamentally broken CMP is, rather than profiling it a far simpler
option than trying to duct-tape it together would be to just redefine it to
use CMS, which would fix most of the problems in one stroke, but I'm not sure
if that's an option).

Peter.