John,
Sounds to me like we need a WG that will look at true secure messaging -
i.e. that which does not rely, depend or dictate any existing carrier or
encapsulation mechanism, and does consider interoperability issues like
those presented by Tim Dean at the Washington meeting.
Darren
-----Original Message-----
From: John Pawling <jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com>
To: Darren Harter <dharter(_at_)cesg(_dot_)gov(_dot_)uk>;
dharter(_at_)email(_dot_)msn(_dot_)com
<dharter(_at_)email(_dot_)msn(_dot_)com>; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
<ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 06:52
Subject: Re: S/MIME v2 Compatibility - was CMS Critical flag for
signedattributes? -Reply
Darren wrote:
The reliance on MIME encodings that a meant, was the fact that data
has to be MIME encoded before it is protected using S/MIME, not that
the form that gets finally sent out is dependant in MIME - or am I
reading the specs incorrectly?
You are reading the S/MIME v3 Message Spec and ESS spec correctly. Note
that specs could be written for another application environment (such as
X.400) that could use the CMS objects without MIME encapsulation (but that
is the topic for a work group other than the S/MIME WG).
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature