Jim and Friends,
I agree with Jim's message. When I expressed support for Peter's proposal
to enhance the CMS RecipientInfo syntax, I assumed that there was consensus
in the PKCS-15 community regarding the proposal. Based on subsequent e-mail
traffic, that assumption has been proved to be false. Therefore, I agree
with Jim that the CMS RecipientInfo syntax should remain unchanged.
- John Pawling
At 10:20 AM 3/10/99 -0800, Jim Schaad (Exchange) wrote:
John & Peter,
At this point in time I am not willing to support this. I have two reasons
for this
1. I want to get CMS approved, and there are other options for how to
approach this (such as a new I-D) and we know a new version of CMS is coming
soon to deal with OEAP
2. I don't think this is the correct set of items that are needed. You
have not proposed an appropriate set of text for section 12. I don't
understand why the Content Encrytion Alg should be encoded twice. I don't
understand why the KEK Wrap algorithm is not specified. I just don't think
this is complete yet.
jim