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?
>[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
>>This is an advantage of putting more data into a single location for
>>people to read rather than having to go through the entire
>>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?