Russ,
That was certainly my thinking as we assembled this. Plus, there is the
added issue that I don't think there is an OID defined for MIME in the
Internet mail standards (old or new). It seems that 'id-data' is all there
is.
Chris
____________________
Russ Housley wrote:
Graeme:
The CMS contentInfo uses id-data when the content is expected to be
MIME. This choice is for historical reasons (S/MIME v2 did it that way).
I think that the authors are trying to avoid a layer of MIME
encapsulation. Did I miss something?
Russ
At 08:49 AM 11/10/2000 +0000, Graeme Lunt wrote:
Hi,
Here are some comments on the following draft:
Title : Transporting S/MIME Objects in X.400
The comments relate to section 2.2, and in particular to the
OID for CMS objects than are MIME encoded.
The proposal is to use a CMS-defined OID to indicate an
S/MIME content type. However, would it not be better to use
an OID that indicate MIME (rather than S/MIME)?
The actual MIME type (and additional parameters) will be contained
within the MIME headers, so that it is not essential to carry the
actual type in the P1 envelope. There is very little an X.400 MTA
would be able to deduce from the P1 content type alone, without
examining the MIME headers.
However, with the more generic approach I can carry arbitrary MIME
types, including multipart/signed. Obviously, a more generic approach
is not necessarily within the scope of the S/MIME group.
Comments?
Graeme