[Top] [All Lists]

Comments on draft-ietf-smime-x400wrap-03

2001-08-06 05:12:53

1.  Is it intentional that there is no section on content encryption
algorithms for MUSTs?

2.  I don't understand the reasoning behind the following statement from
section 3.2.  Why should this be an important statement?  I don't like
the fact that the encoding is suppose to be based on where one thinks
the message MIGHT be sent.  I don't see any problem with SHOULD binary
MAY mime wrap.   Additionally if a MIME wrapper is added to the outside
of the SignedData object, then it does not matter if the inner is
encoded as binary as the mime wrapper can base64 the entire object. [
This is also inconsistant with behavior for encrypted data where it is
always the x.400 content that is embedded. ]

"Note that if SMTP [SMTP] used to transport the resulting signed-only
message then the optional MIME encoding SHOULD be used. If binary
transports such as X.400 are used then the optional MIME encoding SHOULD
NOT be used."

The preceeding text is also present in section 3.3, however it appears
to be in conflict with the third paragraph where it states that MIME
SHOULD NOT be used.

3.  Section 3.2.1:  The following
        Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=signed-data
Should be
        Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=signed-x400

4.  Section 3.4.1:  Step 4 uses the phrase "in a single block".  This
bothers me as it implies that the entire body needs to be supplied at
once.  We octet wrap the content so this is not necessary.  Please
remove or clarify what is meant by "in a single block".