IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification

Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Mon, 14 June 1999 18:29 UTC

Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19599 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:29:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id KAA20864 for ietf-smime-bks; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.spyrus.com (mail.spyrus.com [207.212.34.30]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA20860 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rhousley_laptop.spyrus.com ([209.172.119.101]) by mail.spyrus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09845; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990614093419.00a672c0@mail.spyrus.com>
X-Sender: rhousley@mail.spyrus.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:37:31 -0400
To: Andrew Farrell <afarrell@baltimore.ie>
From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
Subject: Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org, bjueneman@novell.com
In-Reply-To: <199905190005.BAA16423@ocelot.baltimore.ie>
References: <Your message of "Tue, 18 May 1999 16:26:42 MDT." <00ba01bea17d$812f7eb0$4dd44189@provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

>>Thanks for your comments.  I hadn't considered the possible difference 
>>in scope between the S/MIME Message Specification and the CMS, but I can 
>>see that CMS might have broader applicability, and hence, differing 
>>requirements.
>
>This is also the reason why there are, on close examination, no MUSTs
>or SHOULDs in CMS. 

Yes. CMS has many application beyond S/MIME.  We have already started to
see many other applications, including the PKIX CMC.

However, this is not the reason that I did not follow the MUST and SHOULD
conventions.  I tried to keep the document structure similar to PKCS#7
v1.5.  This way, someone who has a RKCS#7 v1.5 implementation might have an
easier time figuring out what changes were needed to implement CMS.

Russ

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status