[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-smime-cms-rsaes-oaep - Use of the RSAES-OAEP Transport Algorithm in CMS to Proposed Standard
- To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
- Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-smime-cms-rsaes-oaep - Use of the RSAES-OAEP Transport Algorithm in CMS to Proposed Standard
- From: Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:01:05 -0700
- Cc: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
- In-reply-to: Message from IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> of "Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:29:08 EDT." <200304102129.RAA07538@ietf.org>
Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain
Allison Mankin [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
However, is there a convention that makes the following make sense?
The usage extension must contain a combination of both values, but
both should not be present - confusing...can there be a cleaner way to
write for the future implementor?
If the
keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that conveys an RSA
public key with the id-RSAES-OAEP object identifier, then the key
usage extension MUST contain a combination of the following values:
keyEncipherment; and
dataEncipherment.
However, both keyEncipherment and dataEncipherment SHOULD NOT be
present.