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

["Jim Schaad" <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would have to say that I think using two locations in a single object for
auth attributes seems to be a poor idea.  There are too many different ways
to get this messed up.

If this was in the original days of how an RFC worked, I would suggest that
what happens is that two different structures be created.  One with the
attrs first, one with the attrs last.  We could then spend some time (at
least 6 months) doing implementations and playing and then adopt one when
the RFC progressed along the standards track.  As things stand I am
reluctant to suggest and support this as an alternative because both would
be implemented and both would be required forever.  I would rather choose
placing the attributes last (which I feel is incorrect) and live with the
consequences than do it in both locations.

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-
> smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Turner, Sean P.
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:02 AM
> To: 'Peter Gutmann'; Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf-smime@xxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-cms-auth-enveloped-03.txt
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
>