Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-cms-auth-enveloped-03.txt
2007-04-10 09:07:10
Peter:
I'm pleased to listen to implementors on this point. So far, two
have spoken. One suggesting the move to SEQUENCE and one
preferring to use their existing attribute handling routines. Both
said, that it was not a really big deal either way. Given that
input, I went with consistency with AuthenticatedData.
What do you mean with consistency with AuthenticatedData? Isn't
it the same as with SignedData?
Having them before is not what I would call consistant. I think you
may consider two sets.
No. They both use SET, but there is a difference in the first tag of
the DER encoding that is used for the hash value
computation. SignedData has a bit of extra complexity for backward
compatibility. PKCS#7 V1.5 did not have AuthenticatedData, so the
extra complexity is not required.
Russ
|
|