RE: Interop Requirement for Signed Data formats

[Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that we have plenty of implementations that already handle 
both.  Please correct me if this is not the case.

If my assertion holds, then MUST for both formats seems like the best way 
forward.

Russ

At 11:02 AM 3/26/2004 -0800, Jim Schaad wrote:

> Chris,
>
> That still does not give interop as a receiving agent may only handle
> application/pkcs7-mime.
>
> Making it MUST to receive both handles that problem.
>
> jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bonatti, Chris [mailto:BonattiC@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:17 AM
> To: jimsch@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ietf-smime@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Interop Requirement for Signed Data formats
>
> Agree.  It should read:
>
> There are two formats for signed messages defined for S/MIME:
> application/pkcs7-mime with SignedData, and multipart/signed.
> Sending agents MUST support the multipart/signed form, and SHOULD support
> the application/pkcs7-mime form. Receiving agents SHOULD be able to handle
> both.
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 02:16
> To: ietf-smime@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Interop Requirement for Signed Data formats
>
>
>
> In my last review of the document I found the following text in section 3.4
>
> There are two formats for signed messages defined for S/MIME:
> application/pkcs7-mime with SignedData, and multipart/signed. In general,
> the multipart/signed form is preferred for sending, and receiving agents
> SHOULD be able to handle both.
>
> The problem here is that there is no interop in the signed message format as
> specified by the above statement. I.E. Person one could implement
> application/pkcs7-mime only and person two could implemement
> multipart/signed only -- no interop.
>
> The best change for interop purposes is to change the SHOULD to a MUST.
>
>
> Comments?
>
> Jim