Subject: Re: Multi-level CMS Signature evaluation Rules: Document Location

From: Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 01:44:35 -0800

On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> This has lead to very little discussion.  I am pleased to propose  
> the text for CMS if that is the direction that the S/MIME WG wants  
> to pursue.  Please pick a direction.  We need to get moving.

OK, well I guess I'm picking it. Russ, please propose some text for  
this in CMS, per Jim's option 1 below. The path here seems to be  
reopening CMS for the purpose of adding this clarification.

Multiple signatures will be on the agenda for IETF 65.

> At 05:09 PM 12/4/2005, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>
>> 1) CMS Base specification
>>         Pro:
>>                 - This is core functionality and it would be seen  
>> by all
>> implementers of CMS
>>                 - It would deal with ALL CMS objects
>>
>>         Con:
>>                 - The document is not currently open for changes
>>                 - Depending on how it is written, it might be more  
>> open to
>> changes in the future

Blake
--
Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:02:39 -0500

Blake:

I will propose text.  However, I am not in favor of opening CMS.  I 
think we can generate a one or two paragraph update.

Russ

---

From: Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:44:09 -0800

> think we can generate a one or two paragraph update.

OK, I was overly specific about the mechanism. I think the sprit here  
is that this is going to be a CMS-level change so that any consumer  
of CMS will benefit from it. The actual form of that change is indeed  
whatever makes the "most sense".

Blake