[Top] [All Lists]

RE: WG Last Call: cmsalg

2001-10-08 17:37:49


No PKIX document should ever need to reference the v1 attribute ASN.1.
The problem is that the current attribute certificate draft in the PKIX
group uses the v2 attribute certificate ASN.1, while CMS originally
referenced the v1 attribute certificate ASN.1.  I don't think that
anybody actually implemented anything that uses the v1 attr
certificates, but Russ obviously feels that the ASN.1 should be
available in the event that anybody ever needs it under the same
availability as the rest of the ASN.1.  (This is not my position, since
I don't think anybody implemented and uses it, and it is now marked
obsolete, it could be omitted entirely and those people who need it can
search for it.)  Thus I don't think that anybody would ever end up
needing to refer to the ASN.1 unless they already are, and no PKIX
documents that I know of do so.


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org] 
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 4:57 PM
To: Housley, Russ; jimsch(_at_)exmsft(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: cmsalg

At 5:29 PM -0400 10/8/01, Housley, Russ wrote:
I would certainly get the ASN.1 checked to make sure that it 
compiles before posting the updated draft in response to IETF Last 

Alternative #3 is the only one that we both like.  I would like to 
hear from others.

OK, I'll chime in. Why is this the job of S/MIME? Shouldn't that 
importing be being done in PKIX? Isn't it at least as valuable to 
them as it is to us?

We could get into a silly state where some PKIX documents refer to an 
S/MIME RFC because it has the v1 ASN.1 they want in it.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

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