This might require that an algorithm registration indicates which one they'd
use. Unless of course, this is just an efficiency thing and it wouldn't
error out.
spt
-----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 Peter
Gutmann
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:41 AM
To: Peter(_dot_)Sylvester(_at_)EdelWeb(_dot_)fr;
pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)auckland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz
Cc: housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)augustcellars(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-cms-auth-enveloped-03.txt
Peter Sylvester <Peter(_dot_)Sylvester(_at_)edelweb(_dot_)fr> writes:
I would like to repeat my suggestion to have two fields, one
before and
one behind.
Sounds good to me.
Peter.