----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonatti, Chris" <BonattiC(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com>
To: "Blake Ramsdell" <blake(_at_)brutesquadlabs(_dot_)com>; "Housley, Russ"
<rhousley(_at_)rsasecurity(_dot_)com>;
<Francois(_dot_)Rousseau(_at_)CSE-CST(_dot_)GC(_dot_)CA>
Cc: <pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)aucKland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz>;
<ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:04 AM
Subject: RE: Compression within RFC2633bis?
Yes. I think that RFC2633bis out to say that compression MAY be
applied
before encryption or signing. It should probably indicate that
compression
should only be applied once for a particular message.
I think that an S/MIME capability should be used to negotiate this
beforehand, if we're going to head down this path.
My apologies for having nodded off on this thread, but why does this need
to be negotiated? All the prior discussions of this revolved around what
the signer preferred. So why can't it just be sender's choice? The
encodings are unambiguous on reception.
I agree that it can be sender's choice. I'd just make that choice based on
knowing that the recipient can receive it.
Blake