RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-cms-auth-enveloped-03.txt

["Turner, Sean P." <turners@xxxxxxxx>]

Peter(s),

Two questions:

Would it be considered an error if the auth.attrs were supposed to come
before but ended up being after?  Seems like the answer is no.

How will the recipient know whether auth.attrs is supposed to come before or
after?  Seems like the answer is via the algorithm registration/description.

I'm not sure the added complexity for the recipient is worth the savings for
an as yet undefined algorithm.

spt 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:41 AM
> To: Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx; pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf-smime@xxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-cms-auth-enveloped-03.txt
> 
> 
> Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >I would like to repeat my suggestion to have two fields, one 
> before and 
> >one behind.
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> Peter.
> 
>