[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Change from "cert-only" in RFC2633-bis-01

2002-07-16 23:01:05

I would prefer to keep the MIME type the same, but add words that clarify the processing. I see no reason to assign a second MIME type for the same thing.


At 07:25 PM 7/15/2002 -0700, Blake Ramsdell wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Schaad" <jimsch(_at_)nwlink(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>; "'Blake Ramsdell'" 
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:22 PM
Subject: Change from "cert-only" in RFC2633-bis-01

> Blake,
> I think that there may be a major problem in making this change.
> Issues:
> 1.  You need to have a backwards compability section describing what the
> old "certs-only" smime-type is and what it does.

From draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-01.txt section 3.6:

Please note that in prior versions of S/MIME, the smime-type parameter
was set to "certs-only" for messages that contained only certificates
and/or certificate revocation lists. The new use of "cert-management"
is meant to clarify the semantic that both certificates and
certificate revocation lists might be found in these messages.
Receiving implementations SHOULD accept "certs-only" and
"cert-management" and treat them equivalently (that is, both could
contain certificates and/or certificate revocation lists).

Please let me know what other clarification would be useful here -- indeed this is something to be careful of if we change this smime-type.

> 2.  I dislike the term cert-management, because you are not doing
> certificate managmement.  A better term would be cert-distribution.

And I'll further complain that "it distributes CRLs as well as certs". This might end up being an interesting rathole. Well, "interesting" as far as ratholes go, that is ;).

> Personally I have no problem with leaving this smime-type as is.

Me neither. Maybe this should change back to "certs-only" and we focus on clarifying the generation / processing of the data rather than changing the smime-type.


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