I think there's still a disconnect here.
Is the following correct?
A normal message (of type 'data') is signed, giving a SignedData
whose inner content is type 'data'.
A receipt is signed, giving another SignedData whose inner conten
is type 'receipt'.
The thing I was objecting to is having to peel open the inner contentInfo
and determine it's type, in order to know what kind of digesting to do.
This means the digesting part of CMS applies to all contents being
signed except for receipts; the processing for receipts is described in
ESS. So handling of SignedData is now spread across two documents,
which isn't exactly optimal from a developer's point of view.
Regards,
Rich
----------
From: John Pawling <jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com>
To: Rich Ankney <rankney(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>; Trevor Freeman
<trevorf(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com>; Blake Ramsdell
<BlakeR(_at_)deming(_dot_)com>; 'Larry Layten'
<larry(_at_)ljl(_dot_)com>; 'ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org'
Subject: Re: Receipts vs. SignedData
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 3:56 PM
Rich,
I agree with you that the ESS Receipt strategy should remain as is and
that
the CMS spec should be clarified to state that the message-digesting
process
that it describes only applies to the SignedData content type.
- John Pawling