Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
This is the crux of the design decision. ESS is designed to standardize the
inclusion of advanced new features in S/MIME, not to be bits-on-the-wire
compatible with non-Internet formats which no longer make sense. I think
you'll have to agree: a privacy mark that cannont include an Internet mail
address (due to the lack of '@' in PrintableString) makes no sense in an
Internet protocol.
Paul,
I do not dispute this point. I merely point out that, all other factors
being equal, it is better to select a non-disruptive design than a disruptive
one. If there were clear counterarguments saying that the existing approach
were somehow "better", I would relent. However, what I have heard so far
sounds like basic defense of the status quo -- on a solution that is about a
month old.
Where we can, we make it easy for software to create messages that are
easily processable into older protocols. This has always been an important
part of all the S/MIME work, and particularly the ESS work. Thus, we offer
a choice for ESSPrivacyMark. If we didn't care about making life easier for
those transitioning from older protocols, there would be no choice, just a
UTF8 string.
This is all that I propose is to, as you say, "make it easier". As things
stand now, it's half way there. Either we should say that we don't care (in
which case it should just be UTF-8 without a choice), or that we do (in which
case what I'm saying is quite relevant).
Best Regards,
Chris B.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium