Russ,
I agree with all of your second round of responses to Jim's comments. I
have a few minor comments:
25) Section 6.2.1, para "rid": Please change "support one at least of these
alternatives." to "support at least one of these alternatives."
29) Section 6.3, para 2: You want to preserve the following sentence: "The
input to the content-encryption process is the "value" of the content being
enveloped." In my opinion, this sentence is not needed and is confusing.
For example, when encrypting an ASN.1 encoded content, an implementer might
interpret this statement to mean that the tag and length octets of the ASN.1
encoded content should not be encrypted. I still believe that the first
paragraph is fine (as is included in draft-ietf-smime-rfc2630bis-01) and
that the second paragraph should be deleted.
36) countersignatures: Also, please change Section 5.4, para 2, as follows:
OLD: "The content type attribute is not required when used as part of a
countersignature unsigned attribute as defined in section 11.4."
NEW: "The content-type attribute MUST NOT be used as part of a
countersignature unsigned attribute as defined in section 11.4."
===========================================
John Pawling, John(_dot_)Pawling(_at_)GetronicsGov(_dot_)com
Getronics Government Solutions, LLC
===========================================