On Apr 01, 2015, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin(_dot_)thomson(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
It was suggested by Paul that I seek feedback on this work here.
Here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-encryption-encoding
Updated, not submitted, version:
https://github.com/mnot/I-D/blob/master/http-encryption-encoding/draft.md
It doesn't have any ASN.1 or OIDs, sorry. And no prizes for finding
the bug in the published version.
In particular, I think that CMS encrypted types might be useful here to give
them more flexibility than what they have now, and so they don't eventually
have to reinvent a bunch of CMS. It also might be overkill. Thoughts?
There’s also these media type registrations but it definitely assumes CMS:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7193/?include_text=1
But isn’t this kind of re-inventing some parts of S-HTTP ;)
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2660/?include_text=1
spt
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime