I have another "minor" request. The last sentence of the second paragraph
in Section 5.6 seems to be particularly convoluted--like nested eggs. How
would this process REALLY work in determining if the signature is valid?
Perhaps some wordsmithing as well as breaking the sentence up into two might
help. Any thoughts anyone?
Bill
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
William F. Flanigan, Jr., Ph.D. Voice: (703) 681-2318
Defense Information Systems Agency Fax: (703) 681-2814
Information Assurance Office (JED) DSN: 761
5600 Columbia Pike, Room 632 Voice Mail: (703) 681-2318
Falls Church, VA 22041-2717 Internet:
<flanigab(_at_)ncr(_dot_)disa(_dot_)mil>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [SMTP:phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:03 PM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-cms-07.txt
One minor request, would it be possible to include a short example of
data
wrapped up with each CMS content-type at the end of the draft (data,
encryptedData, etc)? This would help solve some of the "we thought you
were
supposed to interpret the text this way" problems which have come up, and
provide useful test vectors for implementors.
I would second this request, even if it delays the drafts a bit. From
Jim's
previous message, it is clear that the few people implementing right now
are not 100% on track on this.
Russ, can you add these? Or, if anyone else can provide them quicker, that
would be wonderful.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium