Jim:
I understand the purpose of the MUST and SHOULD statements, but I do not
see any reason to include the remark about history.
Russ
At 12:40 PM 7/10/2001 -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
Russ,
> >9) Table 1, Message Authentication note: Please add this note to
> >immediately follow the table: "Note 3: Only those CMS
> implementations that
> >support the AuthenticatedData content-type MUST implement
> the HMAC with
> >SHA-1 algorithm."
>
> Done. Here is the updated table (view it in a fixed pitch font):
>
> Table 1. CMS Implementation Algorithm Requirements
>
> Algorithm Type MUST implement SHOULD implement
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Message Digest SHA-1 MD5
> Signature DSA and RSA (1) --
> Key Management
> Key Agreement -- X9.42 E-S D-H
> Key Transport RSA --
> Symmetric KEK Wrap Triple-DES Key Wrap RC2 Key Wrap
> Key Derivation PBKDF2 (2) --
> Content Encryption Triple-DES CBC RC2 CBC
> Message Authentication HMAC with SHA-1 (3) --
>
> Note 1: CMS implementations MUST be able to verify signatures
> with both DSA and RSA (PKCS #1 v1.5), and they MUST be
> able to generate signatures with at least one of them.
>
> Note 2: Only those CMS implementations that support password-
> based key management MUST implement the PBKDF2 key
> derivation algorithm as specified in RFC 2898 [PKCS#5].
>
> Note 3: Only those CMS implementations that support
> authenticated-data MUST implement the HMAC with SHA-1
> algorithm as specified in RFC 2104 [HMAC].
Given the confusion and other items for RSA I would like to see the
following done:
Note 4: The use of RSA as a signature algorithm is for historical purposes
only and does not imply that it needs to work with all message digest
algorithms. RSA (PKCS #1 v1.5) signatures using SHA-1 MUST be implemented.
RSA (PKCS #1 v1.5) signatures using MD5 SHOULD be implemented.
>
>
> Russ
>
jim