Should the implementer net be wider that just SMIME?
-----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 Russ
Housley
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:04 PM
To: Jim Schaad; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Algorithm Class Data
Jim:
I believe that this is useful independent of where tools draw
the line.
This is an advantage of putting more data into a single location for
people to read rather than having to go through the entire
document for
the same data.
I've been thinking about this, and I agree. It really would
help implementors to link all of this information together
with unambiguous ASN.1, but it does lead to a compatibility
problem. We would no longer be using the same definitions as
X.509. The new ones would include this additional information
to aid implementors, and generate exactly the same bits on the
wire. I'm not sure the incompatibility is worth it.
Implementors need to speak up here? The structures proposed
by Jim would replace tables (or some other structure chosen by
the implementor). Are implementors going to embrace the
approach offered by Jim?
Russ