I have had a new draft posted as an individual draft. I would like the
working group to consider adopting the draft as a WG item.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-turner-additional-smimecaps-00.txt
provides a list of SMIME capabilities. Some are already contained in
RFCs and some are not. What I'm trying to figure out is whether we
should relax the requirements in S/MIME MSG (all the way back to RFC
2311, 2633, 3851, and 3851bis) that say "In the event that there are no
differentiating parameters for a particular OID, the parameters MUST be
omitted, and MUST NOT be encoded as NULL." I think many implementations
and a few RFCs didn't follow this requirement, e.g., ECDSA, ECDH, ECMQV
in RFC 3278 and RSAES-OAEP in RFC 3560. We'd also like to lock down
what implementations do for RSA with *.
spt