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

[[e-mail] (John Pawling)]

All,

I disagree with adding "..." to the RecipientInfo CHOICE because I believe
that leads to non-interoperable S/MIME implementations.  I believe that the
CMS RecipientInfo syntax should not be changed until it is proven that it does
not meet a valid requirement ("valid" as defined by consensus of the S/MIME
WG).  If that occurs, then we should consider adding a well-defined syntax
as a ReceipientInfo CHOICE (not a wild card).

=========================================================
John Pawling,  Director - Systems Engineering
J.G. Van Dyke & Associates, Inc., a Wang Global Company
=========================================================


At 06:52 PM 3/12/99 -0000, ross@secstan wrote:
>I am happy to use '...' in the choice syntax, but unfortunately that is not
>available when using 1988 ASN.1.  So that option is not available.
>
>If there is strong objection to having a "controlled" way of extending the
>choice (i.e the OID route), but there is agreement to specifically allow the
>equivalent of '...' in 88 syntax (i.e. extend the choice), then there is a
>need to add a comment in the ASN.1.   Also it would be a advisable to say
>under what condition the CMSversion needs to change (if any).  Rule are
>needed so that there is no misunderstanding on how to  expansion the choice
>in the future.
>
>Personally I think a new  version number is advisable every time the choice
>is extended, as that  would make the handing of any extended choice easier
>to handle on reception. But I am happy to follow the general consensus on
>that issue.