Russ,
I believe that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is
achieved by adopting the San Francisco proposal. The SF proposal provides a
simple, consistent strategy for hashing the content. I believe that Jim
agreed with this in his previous msg (enclosed).
- John
Return-Path: <owner-ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
From: "Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch(_at_)EXCHANGE(_dot_)MICROSOFT(_dot_)com>
To: "'Russ Housley'" <housley(_at_)spyrus(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Ietf-Smime (E-mail)" <ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Subject: RE: Hashing of CMS signedData objects
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:54:05 -0800
Sender: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Precedence: bulk
I don't see any need to support the ASN for the old way in the current
CMS spec. What I want to do is just to document what the old way was
and give to implementers how verification would be done if they wanted
to support it. I don't see any reason to polute the pure CMS spec with
this. Putting a reasoning, explication and algorithm in an appendix of
the CMS document is more than sufficient for me.
I think that the number of people who are going to really want to
implement this is very small, most people just have either data objects
or will be using the new version. I just want to document what is going
on (if you want to provide alternate ASN thats fine) so that developers
who run across this old stuff that they cannot tell from the new stuff
except it does not parse will not die.
jim
At 10:33 PM 2/4/98 -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
John:
I realize the ramifications. I am wondering if it is worth the pain to
support the non-S/MIME implemnattions that previousley used PKCS#7 v1.5 to
protect arbitrary content types.
Russ