Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> writes:
CMS needs to support all of these situations. The question is which case the
syntax is optimized to handle. All of them are accommodated. I believe that
we have always in the past arranged the field placement to permit the
recipient to handle the stream efficiently.
The existing format allows both the sender and the recipient to handle the
stream efficiently - that's the nice thing about the existing format, both
low-powered senders and low-powered recipients can handle it (and if you're
streaming in the order of gigabytes of data in real time, almost everything
falls into the "low-powered" class). So in the past the field placement seems
to have been designed to allow both sides to handle the stream efficiently,
which seems to have worked pretty well so far. If the existing PKCS #7/CMS
field format has worked just fine and handled all sorts of applications for
15-odd years, why change it now?