ietf-smime
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: RecipientInfo vs SignerInfo key identification

1998-11-23 14:28:04
-----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


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.

When was this considered?  I can't find a discussion about it in the past
(of course, that refers more to my blindness than anything else.)

It woulf be very easy to add SubjectKeyIdentifier to SignerInfo if the
group concensus has changed.

It seems that you can tick the version number as we do if ACs or
encapsulated content other than id-data is present.

I really don't recall discussing this, and it seems that certificate
references should be the same across the board.  I do agree that backward
compatibility is paramount, and we can accomplish that by using the version
number tick that we are already using for other non-backward-compatible
things.

Blake
--
Blake C. Ramsdell
Worldtalk Corporation
For current info, check http://www.deming.com/users/blaker
Voice +1 425 882 8861 x103  Fax +1 425 882 8060