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

[[e-mail] (Peter Gutmann)]

"John Ross" <[e-mail]> writes:
 
>I also agree with John Pawling, that any extension must be controlled and
>should only be done when there is a requirement not met by the current syntax.
>As per Peter's comment, control of the choice can be achieved by the normal
>RFC process.  Also, if more control is required on S/MIME for interoperability
>reasons, the S/MIME specification (not the CMS spec) could prohibit the
>expansion of the choice unless a new version number is agreed.
 
This sounds like a good way to handle it, that way MSG can profile the stuff
specifically required for S/MIME leaving CMS able to be extended to handle
things which aren't necessarily useful for S/MIME, but are useful for other
applications (things like protection of stored data, of which PKCS #15 is a
prime example).
 
Peter.