RE: proposed addition to application/pkcs7-mime smime parameter

["Jim Schaad" <[e-mail]>]

Blake,


> I see a few ways to proceed, in my personal preference order:
> 
> 1. Commit to the current direction of using the MSG draft to 
> define how to use MIME with everything in CMS, as well as 
> providing a constrained subset of CMS for the purpose of 
> interpersonal messaging.
> 
> 2. Don't put anything in MSG at all that doesn't have to do 
> with interpersonal messaging, but leave what's there (the 
> definition of the application/pkcs7-mime and the currently 
> used smime-types).  Any additional smime-type values are 
> defined outside of the MSG draft.
> 
> 3. Separate everything that has to do with the MIME wrapping 
> of CMS objects into its own draft (CMS/MIME), and don't 
> discuss anything about interpersonal messaging at all.  The 
> MSG draft simply contains references to the CMS/MIME draft, 
> and is a profile of it.  This is somewhat like the separation 
> of CMS and CMSALG, I think.
> 
> I will admit that my preference order is influenced by my 
> role as the editor, and the desire to see MSG progress sooner 
> rather than later.

I have one argument for varient 3 that I just thought of that might be
overwelming at a later date, but certiantly not currently.  If SIP is
dependent on the CMS/SMIME/Messaging draft, and we update that draft for
a messaging only item, then SIP gets reset on its progression path as
well.  I don't think this is an immeadiate issue, but something to
consider in the future.

If we go with the version 1 draft, then we should perhaps look at
reorginaizing the draft along the lines of looking like a profile of a
previously defined item rather than having items intermixed.  I have not
looked at the documents to see how intermixed messaging is with the
document and will do so later this weekend.

> 
> Blake
> 

Jim