[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TSP] signedData version calculation

To: ietf-pkix <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [TSP] signedData version calculation
From: tho <thomas.fossati@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:12:57 +0100
In-reply-to: <>; from thomas.fossati@tin.it on Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:56:00PM +0100
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:56:00PM +0100, tho wrote:
> 
> 
> There seems to be an inconsistency in the calculation of signedData's 
> version between different versions of the CMS document: rfc2630 implies 
> version = 3, while rfc3369 implies version = 1 or 3 depending on certReq 
> field value in the TimeStampReq.

Sorry, I was mislead by my C coder's deformed mind :-) 
This problem doesn't actually exist.


Thomas

References:
- [TSP] signedData version calculation
  - From: tho

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-wlan-extns-04.txt
Next by Date: Re: [TSP] PKIStatus constants clarification
Previous by thread: [TSP] signedData version calculation
Next by thread: [TSP] PKIStatus constants clarification
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread