Martin, Here's the template (I changed the POC from Cullen to me): To: ietf-types@iana.org Subject: Registration of media type application/pkcs8 Type name: application Subtype name: pkcs8 Required parameters: None Optional parameters: None Encoding considerations: binary Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic private key Interoperability considerations: The PKCS#8 object inside this MIME type MUST be DER-encoded PrivateKeyInfo. Published specification: --THIS SPECIFICATION-- /** RFC EDITOR: Replace "--THIS SPECIFICATION--" with the RFC # assigned to this document. **/ Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-compliant transport Additional information: Magic number(s): None File extension(s): .p8 Macintosh File Type Code(s): Person & email address to contact for further information: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> Restrictions on usage: none Author: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> Intended usage: COMMON Change controller: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> spt Martin J. Dürst wrote:

If the registration template is exactly the same, I don't think a new review is needed, but I might be wrong. Anyway, please send templates, not only pointers, to this list. Thanks.

Regards, Martin.

On 2010/04/10 2:02, Sean Turner wrote:

...

I believe that the application/pkcs8 media type registration was reviewed by these experts previously; however, the last time it was reviewed it was in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-certs. The registration was moved from the sip-certs ID to an ID that updates PKCS#8 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-04) to keep all the PKCS#8 information in one place. Can someone confirm whether or not a new review is needed? If it is, can the clock start now?

spt

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

* Sean Turner wrote:

...

Here's the template (I changed the POC from Cullen to me):

To: ietf-types@iana.org

Subject: Registration of media type application/pkcs8

These lines are not supposed to be in the RFC.

I'll remove them.

...

Type name: application

Subtype name: pkcs8

Required parameters: None

Optional parameters: None

Encoding considerations: binary

Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic private key

This should probably reference the Security considerations section.

I'll add this.

...

Interoperability considerations:

The PKCS#8 object inside this MIME type MUST be DER-encoded PrivateKeyInfo.

Published specification: --THIS SPECIFICATION--

/** RFC EDITOR: Replace "--THIS SPECIFICATION--" with the RFC # assigned to this document. **/

Applications which use this media type:

Any MIME-compliant transport

See my comment on the application/pkcs10 template.

Would something like "Applications that process asymmetric keys" suffice? Cheers, spt

* Martin J. Dürst wrote:

If the registration template is exactly the same, I don't think a new review is needed, but I might be wrong. Anyway, please send templates, not only pointers, to this list. Thanks.

Given that the registration template has been changed since the last review, I think it is generally wise to submit revised registrations for review here, even if, say, the merits of the type or its suit- ability for the standards tree do not need to be evaluated again. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/