Bill,
Okay, how about option (3) ;-)
(3) would be we clarify the text, but describe more clearly what I think was
the intent of RFC 2633. Namely, that the format described and identified as
"certs-only" can be used to convey either certs, CRLs or both.
Btw, I would happily go along with either (1) or (2) if the corresponding
change were made to the MSG spec. I guess I still favor (3) however, because I
perceive it to be the status quo, and because allowing CRLs to be included here
doesn't seem to break anything for the PKCS #10 scenario. I'd be hard pressed
to cite the benefits, though. Does anybody remember the logic for why this was
done?
Chris
_______________________
William Ottaway wrote:
Jim,
I think I'm inferring what is done. :-)
My only gripe is I don't like the statement "This format can also be used to
convey CRLs." followed by a description of how to carry certificates but no
description of how to carry CRLs in a similar format.
Its too late to change RFC 2633 but draft-ietf-smime-x400trans could say
something different.
1) Don't mention that CRLs can be carried in a similar way to a certs only
message
or
2) Specify an OID for a CRL only message.
Bill.