[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-x400transport-00.txt
That was certainly my thinking as we assembled this. Plus, there is the
added issue that I don't think there is an OID defined for MIME in the
Internet mail standards (old or new). It seems that 'id-data' is all there
Russ Housley wrote:
> The CMS contentInfo uses id-data when the content is expected to be
> MIME. This choice is for historical reasons (S/MIME v2 did it that way).
> I think that the authors are trying to avoid a layer of MIME
> encapsulation. Did I miss something?
> At 08:49 AM 11/10/2000 +0000, Graeme Lunt wrote:
> >Here are some comments on the following draft:
> > > Title : Transporting S/MIME Objects in X.400
> >The comments relate to section 2.2, and in particular to the
> >OID for CMS objects than are MIME encoded.
> >The proposal is to use a CMS-defined OID to indicate an
> >S/MIME content type. However, would it not be better to use
> >an OID that indicate MIME (rather than S/MIME)?
> >The actual MIME type (and additional parameters) will be contained
> >within the MIME headers, so that it is not essential to carry the
> >actual type in the P1 envelope. There is very little an X.400 MTA
> >would be able to deduce from the P1 content type alone, without
> >examining the MIME headers.
> >However, with the more generic approach I can carry arbitrary MIME
> >types, including multipart/signed. Obviously, a more generic approach
> >is not necessarily within the scope of the S/MIME group.