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

From: "Pawling, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:57:47 -0400

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: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:01:49 -0700

>submit the updated document so that implementers can develop to the same

Look for it this week. There have been a fair number of corrections 
and I'm still coordinating among the authors.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:17:48 -0400

John:

They have been resolving WG Last Call comments.  Nothing nasty is going on.

I expect the document to be posted this week.

Russ