-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Rohan
Mahy
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 7:59 PM
To: Blake Ramsdell
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; rohan(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Subject: proposed addition to application/pkcs7-mime smime parameter
I have included some proposed text to add the other CMS types to the
smime-type mime parameter. Alternatively a new cms-type mime
parameter
could be defined, but this seems a but pedantic to me.
We are in a strange situation here, and I'd like to get feedback on
this. One side of me says that the "application/pkcs7-mime" means "MIME
packaged in PKCS #7 (which then became CMS) for the purpose of moving
around secured MIME entities". I don't know if it's a better idea to a)
overload the application/pkcs7-mime type to mean "CMS, possibly not
wrapped in MIME", or b) introduce application/cms in a separate draft,
along with a cms-type parameter that explains the inner type.
I know that there was much discussion about application/xml in a similar
context, and I don't know if there's anything we can learn from that in
order to resolve this. It seems that the application/xml semantic would
be very similar to the application/cms semantic, but I may not
understand it correctly.
I'm going to release 2633bis-05 shortly, and if there's no discussion on
this topic I'm not going to include anything in that draft. If it's
important, we should work through it.
Blake