Perhaps there has been no discussion because there is nothing to
complain about. Controversy, or "clash" in media terms, is what sells.
The document appears to be a well-thought-out approach to providing
header integrity protection (but not confidentiality, for which
encapsulation is required). Unlike the current encapsulation approach,
it is compatible with header-protection-unaware applications, and it
avoids the issue of how to represent inner and outer headers to users by
not using an outer header in the first place.
In short, what's not to like, and when can we buy it? Seriously, if
this is a straw poll for accepting this proposal as a work item and
progressing it toward RFC, I vote yes.
And if we need to spice things up with a little clash, "fielname" is
misspelled in section 2.1.
_____
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, October 11, 2007 12:13 PM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: lijun(_dot_)liao(_at_)nds(_dot_)rub(_dot_)de;
joerg(_dot_)schwenk(_at_)nds(_dot_)rub(_dot_)de
Subject: Re: Header Protection for S/MIME
I have not seen any discussion of this document on this list. It is
proposing a very different approach to a problem that was discussed on
this mail list. The current MSG specification includes a very different
solution to this problem.
We should be talking about this proposal ....
Russ