[Top] [All Lists]

RE: cmsalg-02 Comments

2001-08-31 10:07:40


Thank you for your responses to my comments.  I have included some comments
to your responses in-line.  I snipped the stuff that we already agree on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Housley, Russ [mailto:rhousley(_at_)rsasecurity(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:54 PM
To: Pawling, John
Cc: SMIME WG (E-mail)
Subject: Re: cmsalg-02 Comments



3) Sec 3.2 specifies that the md5WithRSAEncryption or sha1WithRSAEncryption
OID should be used in the signerInfo signatureAlgorithm field instead of
id-rsaEncryption OID.  I agree with this strategy, but please note that
is a change from what is specified in RFC 2630.  RFC2630 specifies the use
of id-rsaEncryption in the signerInfo signatureAlgorithm field.  Is this
change going to cause backwards compatibility problems with legacy CMS

I want to highlight this point.  As you say, it might be controversial.  I 
will start a thread to discuss this point.

[JSP: I already started a separate thread.]


5) sec 4.1.2, originator field, please replace:

OLD: "In both cases, the recipient's certificate contains the sender's
static public key,"

NEW: "In both cases, the originator's certificate contains the originator's
static public key,"

Good catch.  In PKCS #7, RFC 2630, and rfc2630bis-03, the term "sender" is 
used in much of that narrative description.  Therefore, I prefer:

       originator MUST be either the issuerAndSerialNumber or
       subjectKeyIdentifier alternative.  In both cases, the originator's
       certificate contains the sender's static public key, and the
       certificate subject public key information field MUST contain the
       dh-public-number object identifier:

          dh-public-number OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
              us(840) ansi-x942(10046) number-type(2) 1 }

[JSP: Agree]

6) sec 4.1.2, originator field, please add: "[PROFILE] specifies the
AlgorithmIdentifier parameters syntax and values that are populated in the
originator's certificate."

Is this correct?  I think that it has been moved to the PKIX Algs document.

[JSP: You are correct.  Please change my comment to use the PKIX Algs



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>