Subject: Re: New test TSA available

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:03:49 +1200 (NZST)

tho <[email-masked]> writes:

>(A) draft-ietf-pkix-time-stamp-15 states that eContentType for a time
>    stamping token should be id-ct-TSTInfo why is it instead set to
>    id-data ?

Probably because the implementation was done back when draft-06 or
something was current :-).  This is also why various other things
required by newer drafts aren't present, I'll fix this when I next
update the code (because of the environment it's in, there's a bit of
latency involved when making changes).

>since the encapsulated content type is set to id-data, version
>field in SignedData is (`correctly' since (A)) set to 1 and not to 3

This one's deliberate, since CMS implementations are split 50/50 between
ones which ignore the version entirely and ones which require it to be
what PKCS #7 set it to, I always use the PKCS #7 version value because
that means it'll work with everything.

>signatureAlgorithm in SignerInfo is rsaEncryption, shouldn't it be more
>likely sha1withRSAEncryption ?

Since the CMS signature splits the hash and signing algorithm, the first
OID is a pure hash (SHA-1) and the second is a pure signature algorithm
(RSA).

Peter.

---

From: tho <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:19:49 +0200

> that means it'll work with everything.

i see the point, i also understand that version choice in SignedData is 
somewhat a minor issue, but it would be nice if we all stick to cms rfc 
rather than develop something broken just to permit interoperability with 
other broken implementations

the former should be read taking into account the fact that the number of 
tsp client at present is still rather small and developers are surely in 
time to fix their bugs  :)) 

my two bits, tho
-- 
(__)         
(oo)        
 \/-------\
  ||     | \  
  ||---W||  *

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:15:42 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Gutmann" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: New test TSA available

> latency involved when making changes).

The TSA should by its response message also identify which standard or draft
level it complies to.