I would not be againist the addition of SKI in CMS, but if that was done
then I believe that the S/MIME message draft would be required to add a MUST
NOT on its use. The addition of SKI would make sense for other groups
without the history of PKCS#7 already deployed to use.
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley(_at_)spyrus(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 8:16 AM
To: pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)aucKland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: RecipientInfo vs SignerInfo key identification
Peter:
The addition of SubjectKeyIdentifier to SignerInfo was considered. Many
developers felt that backward compatibility with PKCS#7 v1.5 and S/MIME v2
was more important that the shorter certificate reference.
It woulf be very easy to add SubjectKeyIdentifier to SignerInfo if the
group concensus has changed.
Russ
At 03:10 AM 11/23/98 +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
I've noticed that RecipientInfo identifies a key with a CHOICE between
IssuerAndSerialNumber and SubjectKeyIdentifier, but SignerInfo only allows
IssuerAndSerialNumber. Presumably whatever reason requires the SKI in the
RecipientInfo should also require it in the SignerInfo, could these be
merged
to create a unified identifier type (ie they both use a RecipientInfo-style
CHOICE)?
Peter.