[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Algorithm Class Data

2007-08-17 06:31:19

Yes.  The suggestion that Jim made is equally viable in PKIX.

At 10:13 PM 8/16/2007, Turner, Sean P. wrote:
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 
>Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:04 PM
>To: Jim Schaad; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
>Subject: RE: Algorithm Class Data
>>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?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>