RE: More on KEKIdentifiers, and a suggested addition to CMS

[[e-mail] (John Pawling)]

Jim and Friends,

I agree with Jim's message.  When I expressed support for Peter's proposal
to enhance the CMS RecipientInfo syntax, I assumed that there was consensus
in the PKCS-15 community regarding the proposal.  Based on subsequent e-mail
traffic, that assumption has been proved to be false.  Therefore, I agree
with Jim that the CMS RecipientInfo syntax should remain unchanged.

- John Pawling 


At 10:20 AM 3/10/99 -0800, Jim Schaad (Exchange) wrote:
>John & Peter,
>
>At this point in time I am not willing to support this. I have two reasons
>for this
>
>1.  I want to get CMS approved, and there are other options for how to
>approach this (such as a new I-D) and we know a new version of CMS is coming
>soon to deal with OEAP
>
>2.  I don't think this is the correct set of items that are needed.  You
>have not proposed an appropriate set of text for section 12.  I don't
>understand why the Content Encrytion Alg should be encoded twice.  I don't
>understand why the KEK Wrap algorithm is not specified.  I just don't think
>this is complete yet.
>
>jim
>
>