Re: ESSSecurityLabel Comments

I can agree to that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Turner <turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com>
To: John Pawling <jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com>
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org <ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>; John Ross 
<ross(_at_)secstan(_dot_)com>
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: ESSSecurityLabel Comments

John

Instead of actually changing the syntax you could just as easily put in the

text to indicate that the security policy oid is always required.  One less
change to the existing syntax.


spt

John Pawling wrote:


All,

We need to add a context-specific tag to the ESSSecurityLabel version

field

because there are two INTEGERs in the SET.  In order to keep the tags in
numerical order, recommend that ESSPrivacyMark utf8String should be

changed

to "[1]" and then "[0]" can be used for ESSSecurityLabel version.  This
results in the following:

ESSSecurityLabel ::= SET {
  version                    [0] Version DEFAULT v1,
  security-policy-identifier     SecurityPolicyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
  security-classification        SecurityClassification OPTIONAL,
  privacy-mark                   ESSPrivacyMark OPTIONAL,
  security-categories            SecurityCategories OPTIONAL }

ESSPrivacyMark ::= CHOICE {
    pString                      PrintableString (SIZE
(1..ub-privacy-mark-length)),
    -- If pString is used, the ESSSecurityLabel version is set to v1
    utf8String               [1] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING SIZE (1..MAX)
    -- If utf8String is used, its contents MUST be in UTF8 format, and
    -- the ESSSecurityLabel version is set to v2
}

================================
John Pawling, jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com
J.G. Van Dyke & Associates, Inc.
www.jgvandyke.com
================================