Subject: RE: New x400wrap I-D? (was RE: SMIME-TYPE question)

From: Musy Michel-P28089 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:50:20 -0700

Thanks to Jim for the clarification, to John for confirming and helping
by suggesting publication of the new version of the related document.

Michel

-----Original Message-----
From: Pawling, John [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:58 PM
To: 'Musy Michel-P28089'
Cc: SMIME WG (E-mail)
Subject: New x400wrap I-D? (was RE: SMIME-TYPE question)

Michel,

I agree with everything that Jim stated except that I have not seen the
updated x400wrap document to which he referred.  The x400wrap authors should
submit the updated document so that implementers can develop to the same
spec.  

===========================================
John Pawling, [email-masked]
Getronics Government Solutions, LLC
===========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 6:39 PM
To: 'Musy Michel-P28089'; 'Ietf-Smime (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: SMIME-TYPE question

Michel,

I understand where you went wrong -- you didn't.  I have seen a later draft
of this document and this has been changed.  Since EncapsulatedContentInfo
and ContentInfo have the exact same content (i.e. an OID and ANY), having
both is actually redunant.  This means that the ContentInfo can be omitted
and just the EncapsulatedContentInfo used to convay the same information.

jim

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:04:29 -0400

Yes.

At 03:41 PM 7/10/2001 -0700, Musy Michel-P28089 wrote:
>Will this new version of the x400wrap document be posted this week and
>advertised in the working groups?