From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso(_at_)MIT(_dot_)EDU>
Subject: Re: PEM/MIME Encryption
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:44:56 +0500
The present MIME/PEM proposal does support this. If it doesn't then there's
something broken that needs to be fixed, I agree.
I somehow interpreted Jim Galvin's two page posting as a very long,
roundabout way of saying that the current MIME/PEM proposal does *not*
support CR/LF/CRLF cannonicalization when the message is encrypted. If
I misunderstand what he said, then I apologize ---- and that's great!
Thanks, Ted. This is exactly what we should clarify at first.
Jim and Ned, please answer the following questions.
(Q) Does the current MIME/PEM cannonicalize a text message when it is
encrypted?
If yes, which statement of the I-D says so.
If no, can a Unix user communicate with a Mac user with an encrypted
text message? Please tell me why base64 cannonicalizes a text before
encoding.
From: Harald(_dot_)T(_dot_)Alvestrand(_at_)uninett(_dot_)no
Subject: Re: Forward: PEM/MIME Encryption
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:29:25 +0100
On page 9 of my version (November 1994), it says:
"prior to the application of the digital signature service, the body
part must be in a canonical form. Transforming the body part to
be signed into a canonical form is a necessary and essential part
in the digital signature process.......Second, the body part must
have its line delimiters converted to a unique and unambiguos
representation prior to computing the digital signature and prior
to each verification of the digital signature"
Harald, we are talking about encryption, not signature.
--Kazu