On 2013-07-20 12:33, Ayhan Sehrin wrote:
Hi Ayhan,
Using CAdES in S/MIME structures should be possible with or without an RFC.
Using CAdES together with desktop clients is less feasible and it would
probably require a minor miracle fixing it.
OTOH, it seems that your REM solution rather builds on web technology so then
there are no hurdles at all!
Thanx
Anders Rundgren
Dear list Members,
As Verion Technology Group, a technology provider working on Registered
E-Mail (REM) solutions since 2009, we are currently in the process of
formulating a set of basic implementation principles and tools for REM
Management Domain (MD)’s operative in Turkey. We need to resort to your
experience and know-how on the subject of the S/MIME specification, and I was
kindly prompted by Mr. Blake Ramsdell to address your list for further
comments and insight.
The Registered E-Mail Regulatory Authority in Turkey has very recently
mandated the use of the CAdES-A profile within the S/MIME structure and as we
are a bit perplexed on the issue, we would like to inquire your comments on:
- whether it would be logical/feasible/meaningful to use the CAdES-A profile
within an S/MIME structure (for some instances within the REM workflow
CAdES-BES is also required)
- whether the above usage would present difficulties/problems in terms of
interoperability of systems (i.e. e-mail clients or BPM/ERP systems, where
the messages are expected to be utilised - e.g. a REM message received is
downloaded and then used as the input of a business process within a core
banking component) especially as regards the subsequent verification process
within these systems and among different REM Service Providers in Turkey and
in Europe (as Turkey has opted in to the ETSI TS 102640).
- whether, from a technical viewpoint, the implementation of an S/MIME
structure with the usage of a CAdES signature presents a problem with the
S/MIME RFC
- whether the S/MIME RFC should be expected to natively accomodate CAdES
profiles in the near future
We would gladly provide more details on the ETSI 102640 implementation in
Turkey, if it is of essense to the above inquiries.
We will be much obliged, should you be able to provide insight.
Thank you in advance and warm regards,
Ayhan ŞEHRİN
Man. Director
Verion Technology Group
Birlik Mah. 435. Cad. 403. Sok. No:3/3
Çankaya, Ankara - Turkey
+90 312 496 3316 <tel:%2B90%20312%20496%2033%2016> (office)
+90 533 556 3333 <tel:%2B90%20533%20556%203333> (mobile)
NB-REM implementation in Turkey in a tiny nutshell: In the typical REM
implementation in Turkey, an original message is required to be signed with
the sender’s Qualified Electronic Signature, two out of the currently three
REMSPs provide tools for constructing and signing the sender’s S/MIME
structure on the client, receive it over https (or over a web service for
enterprise integration instances) to the REMSP servers. The third REMSP
constructs the MIME message on its own server, hashes it an sends it for a
CAdES signature to the sender’s client. Evidence is produced by REMSPs during
the mail acceptance, delivery and retrieval milestones and is expected to be
stored in WORM storage or to be archived, XadES-A for evidence, CAdES-A for
all system logs.
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime