RE: Triple Wrapping Survey

["Jim Schaad" <jimsch@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>Hi Russ,
>
>I agree that S/MIMEv3 should minimize Base64 encoding when possible. As I
>understand MIME, all implementations should handle binary as this is the
>default unless otherwise specified.

There are some known existing implemenations which cannot correctly handle the
binary versions.  I do not know any longer how wide spread these versions are.


jim

>
>Regards,
>Aram Perez
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 7:21 PM
>To: ietf-smime@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Triple Wrapping Survey
>
>
>I have a few questions for implementors.  First some background, then the 

>questions.
>
>The use of S/MIMEv3 Triple Wrapping leads to the incorporation of four MIME

>encodings.  If each of these encodings uses Base64, then the overhead is 
>huge.  I am interested in ways to reduce the overhead, hopefully without 
>hurting IMAP usability.
>
>1.  Can your implementation handle
>	MIME( SignedData (EnvelopedData (SignedData ( MIME ))) ?
>
>The outer SignedData has the OID for EnvelopedData in the content type, not

>id-data.
>The EnvelopedData has the OID for SignedData in the content type, not
>id-data.
>The inner Signed Data has the id-data OID in the content type.
>
>2.  Can your implementation handle MIME without Base64 encoding?  I am 
>interested in using "binary" instead of Base64 to reduce the overhead.
>
>Russ
>
>
http://www.nwlink.com