Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-rfc2632bis-05.txt

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:28:51 -0800

Hi Blake,

1.  Section 2.2.1:  In the following text,  I have a problem with "PKIX" as
oppose to X.509 Identity Certificates, esp as PKIX now has a definition for
ACs.

The CMS message format supports a choice of certificate formats for
public key content types: PKIX, PKCS #6 Extended Certificates and
X.509 Attribute Certificates.

2.  Section 2.2.1, p 3: s/suerceded/superseded/ --- I didn't believe it but
I looked it up.

3.  Section 2.3:  The following statements don't agree:

Receiving agents MUST be able to handle an arbitrary number of
certificates of arbitrary relationship to the message sender and to
each other in arbitrary order. 

A receiving agent
SHOULD be able to handle an arbitrarily large number of certificates
and chains.

4.  Section 2.3:  Let's get a better term for this that "CA certificates"

Agents MAY send CA certificates, that is, certificates that are self-
signed and can be considered the "root" of other chains. 

5. Section 3:  Please define the type of field for pkcs-9-at-emailAddress.
(I think it's IA5 string but can't swear to it off the top of my head.)

6.  Section 5: s/noticable/noticeable/

7.  Section 5: s/message,if/message, if/