draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-07.txt   draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-08.txt 
S/MIME Working Group S/MIME Working Group
Internet Draft Paul Hoffman, IMC Internet Draft Paul Hoffman, IMC
draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-07.txt Chris Bonatti, IECA draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-08.txt Chris Bonatti, IECA
May 12, 2003 June 29, 2003
Expires November 12, 2003 Expires December 29, 2003
Transporting S/MIME Objects in X.400 Transporting S/MIME Objects in X.400
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
skipping to change at line 415 skipping to change at line 415
message. Messages to a DL would typically include only a single message. Messages to a DL would typically include only a single
RecipientInfo associated with the DL. Unlike Mail Lists (MLs) described RecipientInfo associated with the DL. Unlike Mail Lists (MLs) described
in [ESS], however, X.400 DLs are not generally security-aware and do not in [ESS], however, X.400 DLs are not generally security-aware and do not
regenerate RecipientInfo elements for the DL members. It is recommended regenerate RecipientInfo elements for the DL members. It is recommended
that a security-aware ML conforming to [ESS] be used in preference to that a security-aware ML conforming to [ESS] be used in preference to
X.400 DLs. When transporting CMS objects within an X.400 environment, X.400 DLs. When transporting CMS objects within an X.400 environment,
the DL Expansion Prohibited service SHOULD be selected. the DL Expansion Prohibited service SHOULD be selected.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This entire document discusses the topic of conveying security protocol This specification introduces no new security concerns to the CMS or
structures. Additional security issues are identified in section 5 of S/MIME models. Security issues are identified in section 5 of [MSG],
[MSG], section 6 of [ESS] and the Security Considerations section of section 6 of [ESS] and the Security Considerations section of [CMS].
[CMS].
A. References A. References
A.1 Normative References A.1 Normative References
[CERT31] Ramsdell, B., Editor, "S/MIME Version 3 Certificate [CERT31] Ramsdell, B., Editor, "S/MIME Version 3 Certificate
Handling", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-smime-rfc2632bis. Handling", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-smime-rfc2632bis.
[CMS] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", Internet-Draft [CMS] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-smime-rfc2630bis. draft-ietf-smime-rfc2630bis.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/