Yes,
it would be useful to have a comprehensive reference to these attributes.
(It would be nice in the future to use a registry for this, to allow timely
updates!)
Tony
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
| [mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Sean
Turner
| Sent: May 6, 2009 5:29 PM
| To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
| Subject: Another Potential Work Item
|
|
|
| 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-sm
imecaps-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