Vint:
RE: Your that, "Plainly, it is important that various body parts in the MIME
message be capable of bearing different privacy/authenticity enhancements."
In the early PSRG work, PEM could encrypt portions of a message while leaving
other portions plaintext. We found that no one was implementing the sending of
such messages because it was difficult to indicate which potions of a message
should be encrypted and which portions should not. Because of the MIME body
part structure, it might be easier for a user to identify which body parts of a
content should be encrypted, but I do not think that is is obvious that there
is such a requirement. However, I do see a need to support forwarding which
preserves the signature from the original sender.
Russ
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 09:49:21 PST
Sender: pem-dev-relay(_at_)tis(_dot_)COM
From: vcerf(_at_)cnri(_dot_)reston(_dot_)va(_dot_)US
Subject: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability
In-Reply-to: "Your message of \"Tue, 19 Jan 93 17:27:44 MST.\"
<01GTPN2KR52E984RCG(_at_)SIGURD(_dot_)INNOSOFT(_dot_)COM>"
To: NED(_at_)sigurd(_dot_)innosoft(_dot_)COM
cc: wahl(_at_)atlas(_dot_)arc(_dot_)nasa(_dot_)GOV, pem-dev(_at_)tis(_dot_)COM
Message-ID:
<9301201249(_dot_)aa05368(_at_)IETF(_dot_)CNRI(_dot_)Reston(_dot_)VA(_dot_)US>
<----RFC822 headers-----
Received: from TIS.COM ([192.33.112.100]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id
<12063>; Wed, 20 Jan 1993 10:32:11 PST
Received: by TIS.COM (4.1/SUN-5.64)
id AA02578; Wed, 20 Jan 93 12:53:37 EST
Received: from IETF.nri.reston.VA.US (IETF.CNRI.RESTON.VA.US) by TIS.COM
(4.1/SUN-5.64)
id AA02565; Wed, 20 Jan 93 12:53:35 EST
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05368;
20 Jan 93 12:49 EST
To: Ned Freed <NED(_at_)sigurd(_dot_)innosoft(_dot_)com>
Cc: Mark Wahl <wahl(_at_)atlas(_dot_)arc(_dot_)nasa(_dot_)gov>,
pem-dev(_at_)tis(_dot_)com
From: "Vinton G. Cerf" <vcerf(_at_)cnri(_dot_)reston(_dot_)va(_dot_)us>
Redistributed: Xerox-PEM-DEV:All Areas:Xerox
-----RFC822 headers---->
Ned,
thanks for the message on MHS/MIME and PEM. I think it is at once
vital to bring to MIME the benefits of PEM (by which I mean to
say "privacy enhancement" - however it proceeds technically).
Plainly, it is important that various body parts in the MIME message
be capable of bearing different privacy/authenticity enhancements.
Vint
----- End Forwarded Messages -----