Here are my comments on John. I have left the number the same as the
orginal message.
2) Section 5.1, SignedData certificates description: Please
delete: "As
discussed above, if attribute certificates are present, then
the value of
version MUST be 3." I don't believe that we need to repeat
the version
setting algorithm in this text.
I very much agree with this. Having a MUST requirement specified multiple
times is confusing in many ways.
4) Section 6.2, RecipientInfo description: Please delete
"are" from the
following sentence: " [*** NEW ***] All implementations MUST
support the
mandatory to implement key management algorithms are
specified in [CMSALG],
or its successor."
As I have said before - and is a new topic - I disagree and feel the entire
paragragh should be deleted.
5) Section 6.2: I strongly agree that the pwri and ori
CHOICES should be
included in RecipientInfo.
I concur with this.
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.
I disagree with this. This is the version struture of the
PasswordRecipientInfo structure and is independent of the EnvelopedData
version number.
I think however that the version number of EnvelopedData needs to be 3 if
either PasswordRecipientInfo or OtherRecipient is present as these are "new"
structure and thus modify the behavior of the processing an EnvelopedData
object. I don't think that this will necessaryly need to be changed in the
future as we now have an explicit statement that implemenations MUST handle
other choices in the RecipientInfo. This was not imposed in the past
however.
11) Section 11.1 Content Type: Please add as last sentence of first
paragraph: "The content-type attribute value MUST match the
encapContentInfo
eContentType value in the signed-data or authenticated-data."
Do we consider a non-match to be a signature failure? This is not currently
stated anyplace. I think that we should probably add this.
12) Section 11.2 Message Digest: Please replace the last
paragraph with the
following:
"The SignedAttributes and AuthAttributes syntaxes are each
defined as
a SET OF Attributes. The SignedAttributes in a signerInfo MUST NOT
include multiple instances of the message-digest
attribute. Similarly,
the AuthAttributes in an AuthenticatedData MUST NOT
include multiple
instances of the message-digest attribute."
I agree that the AuthAttributes stateemnt needs to be added. However, I
think this should be a MUST not a MUST NOT as MUST NOT is not testable.
== jim