"Jim Schaad" <jimsch5(_at_)home(_dot_)com> writes:
I do not think that the EnvelopedData version number field was ever addressed
in the Peter's document. I agree that the algorithm needs to be updated.
That was deliberate, I don't see that a new RecipientInfo definition (or
anything similar) should be placing contraints on RFC 2630. If there's a need
to change EnvelopedData then it should be done where it's defined, not in an
external document.
(While I'm commenting on this, I also feel that the best way to resolve this is
to issue a draft which leaves the issue unspecified, then in the next draft
write down what it is that implementations are doing, which will ensure that
(a) it's consensus behaviour and (b) the RFC reflects the real world. Trying
to second-guess the behaviour of implementations seems risky at best).
Peter.