I would have to say that I think using two locations in a single object for
auth attributes seems to be a poor idea. There are too many different ways
to get this messed up.
If this was in the original days of how an RFC worked, I would suggest that
what happens is that two different structures be created. One with the
attrs first, one with the attrs last. We could then spend some time (at
least 6 months) doing implementations and playing and then adopt one when
the RFC progressed along the standards track. As things stand I am
reluctant to suggest and support this as an alternative because both would
be implemented and both would be required forever. I would rather choose
placing the attributes last (which I feel is incorrect) and live with the
consequences than do it in both locations.
Jim
-----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 Turner, Sean P.
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:02 AM
To: 'Peter Gutmann'; Peter(_dot_)Sylvester(_at_)EdelWeb(_dot_)fr
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(s),
Two questions:
Would it be considered an error if the auth.attrs were supposed to come
before but ended up being after? Seems like the answer is no.
How will the recipient know whether auth.attrs is supposed to come
before or
after? Seems like the answer is via the algorithm
registration/description.
I'm not sure the added complexity for the recipient is worth the
savings for
an as yet undefined algorithm.
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.