Just to be a little more clare abouit this. My response would be as
follows:
1. It is stated that the reciept must be DER encoded.
2. The directly statement is made with respect to the lack of a MIME layer
being inserted between the receipt content and the surrounding SignedData
ASN construct (i.e. the MIME layer is omitted unlike what is done in
wrapping a signed message in an encrypted message).
3. The OCTET wrapping or lack of is addressed by either PKCS#7 or CMS
drafts. It is present for CMS and omitted for PKCS#7.
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Cameron Stillion
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 11:45 AM
To: 'ietf-smime@xxxxxxx'
Cc: 'phoffman@xxxxxxx'; Bryan Staats
Subject: ESS : Secure Receipt encoding within EncapsulatedContentInfo
... and now for something completely different:
According to the ESS RFC on page 16, step 9:
9. The ASN.1 DER encoded Receipt content MUST be directly encoded within
the signedData encapContentInfo eContent OCTET STRING defined in [CMS].
Should eContent be a DER-encoding of the receipt?
or
Should eContent be a DER-encoding of an OCTET STRING containing the
DER-encoding of the receipt?
The word "directly" seems to indicate that the former is the correct one.
Just tell me I'm not crazy.
Cameron Stillion
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>