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

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (Cryptographic MessageSyntax (CMS) Multiple Signer Clarification) to Proposed Standard

To: "Denis Pinkas" <denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (Cryptographic MessageSyntax (CMS) Multiple Signer Clarification) to Proposed Standard
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:44:49 -0500
Cc: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf-smime@xxxxxxx" <ietf-smime@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <OF8BAD7805.FF5F1B62-ONC1257273.00352330@xxxxxxxxxxxx> (Denis Pinkas's message of "Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:40:21 +0100")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-smime.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <OF8BAD7805.FF5F1B62-ONC1257273.00352330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

Denis, it sounds like you have two issues:

1) This document goes beyond specifying how to determine if a message
   is validly signed by a given signer.

2) There is not enough precision in the description of how to validate
   a signature.

I strongly suggest that you try and build consensus for these two
positions separately.

References:
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (Cryptographic MessageSyntax (CMS) Multiple Signer Clarification) to Proposed Standard
  - From: Denis Pinkas

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-cms-auth-enveloped-01.txt
Previous by thread: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (Cryptographic MessageSyntax (CMS) Multiple Signer Clarification) to Proposed Standard
Next by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-cms-auth-enveloped-01.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread