Simon:
You raise an important consideration. I do not know the answer. Do others?
Russ
At 12:40 PM 1/23/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
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.