I disagree with adding "..." to the RecipientInfo CHOICE because I believe
that leads to non-interoperable S/MIME implementations. I believe that the
CMS RecipientInfo syntax should not be changed until it is proven that it does
not meet a valid requirement ("valid" as defined by consensus of the S/MIME
WG). If that occurs, then we should consider adding a well-defined syntax
as a ReceipientInfo CHOICE (not a wild card).
John Pawling, Director - Systems Engineering
J.G. Van Dyke & Associates, Inc., a Wang Global Company
At 06:52 PM 3/12/99 -0000, ross(_at_)secstan wrote:
I am happy to use '...' in the choice syntax, but unfortunately that is not
available when using 1988 ASN.1. So that option is not available.
If there is strong objection to having a "controlled" way of extending the
choice (i.e the OID route), but there is agreement to specifically allow the
equivalent of '...' in 88 syntax (i.e. extend the choice), then there is a
need to add a comment in the ASN.1. Also it would be a advisable to say
under what condition the CMSversion needs to change (if any). Rule are
needed so that there is no misunderstanding on how to expansion the choice
in the future.
Personally I think a new version number is advisable every time the choice
is extended, as that would make the handing of any extended choice easier
to handle on reception. But I am happy to follow the general consensus on