While strictly not CMS related (is there a more appropriate mailing list
to discuss the draft?), I wonder whether using *.sig as the extension
for detached CMS signatures is standardized? That file extension is
frequently used for OpenPGP signatures in practice.
It may be nice to consider using another file extension, to avoid format
confusion. I realize that if use of *.sig is already wide-spread for
detached CMS signatures, the document might as well follow that
precedent. Further, I don't know whether the practice of using *.sig
for OpenPGP signatures is standardized.
/Simon
Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> writes:
This document makes use of CMS, so I'd appreciate review from this group.
Russ
draft-housley-internet-draft-sig-file-00.txt has been submitted to
the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-housley-internet-draft-sig-file
Revision: 00
Title: Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft Documents
Creation_date: 2008-01-23
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 12
Abstract:
This document specifies the conventions for digital signatures on
Internet-Drafts. The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) is used to
create a detached signature, which is stored in a separate companion
file so that no existing utilities are impacted by the addition of
the digital signature.