[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Comments to draft-ietf-smime-rfc2630bis-01

2001-06-29 11:44:23


Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my comments.  I agree with all of
your responses and counter-proposals except for the following:
I stated: "7) Section 6.2.4, recommend changing PasswordRecipientInfo
version value to 1.  This would cause the EnvelopedData version number to be
set to 2 if the PasswordRecipientInfo was present.  This would assist with
debugging and error reporting."

You responded; "Please raise this on a separate thread.  This is a comment
on draft-ietf-smime-password, not CMS.  Right now, draft-ietf-smime-password
says to use version 0.

We can change the version setting algorithm...."

A few months ago, I proposed that the PasswordRecipientInfo version value
should be changed in draft-ietf-smime-password.  My proposal met with
resistance.  I propose that the Section 6.1, EnvelopedData version setting
algorithm should be changed as follows:

   [*** NEW ***] version is the syntax version number.  The
   appropriate value depends on originatorInfo, RecipientInfo, and
   unprotectedAttrs.  The version MUST be assigned as follows:

   IF (originatorInfo is present) OR (unprotectedAttrs is present)
        IF (any version 2 attribute certificates are present)
        THEN version is 3
        ELSE version is 2
        IF (any RecipientInfo structures are a version other than 0) OR
           (any RecipientInfo structures are pwri CHOICE) 
        THEN version is 2
        ELSE version is 0

John Pawling, John(_dot_)Pawling(_at_)GetronicsGov(_dot_)com
Getronics Government Solutions, LLC

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>