Subject: RE: S/MIME version number

From: "Pawling, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:26:03 -0400

Jim,

I believe that when an ASN.1 syntax is changed that includes a version
field, then a new version number should be assigned to indicate the new
ASN.1 syntax.  If password-based encryption is added as a new CHOICE to the
RecipientInfo syntax (which is part of EnvelopedData), then I believe that a
new version number should be assigned for use in the EnvelopedData version
field.  In that case, I propose that the RFC 2630, Section 6.1
EnvelopedData Type, version definition should be changed to state: "version
is the syntax version number.  If originatorInfo is present, then version
shall be 3.  If any of the RecipientInfo structures included have a version
other than 0, then version shall be 3.  If unprotectedAttrs is present, then
version shall be 3.  If originatorInfo is absent, all of the RecipientInfo
structures are version 0, and unprotectedAttrs is absent, then version shall
be 0."

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

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:03:04 -0700

John,

I think that you need to make a comment about this either in regards to the
Password Base encryption that is currently with the IESG in last call, or
with the upcoming CMS draft to be issued.

jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Pawling, John
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 10:26 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: S/MIME version number
>
>
> Jim,
>