Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) Multiple Signer Clarification) to Proposed Standard

[Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester at edelweb.fr>]

To the second point:

Denis:

you describe that the text concerning how to determine one signer with 
multiple
signature is weak, nobody has disagreed, the text says 'ought to be' 
'usually' etc.

but then you start a new discussion about a single signature 
verification which
is IMO not related at all. furthermore you insert a new feature about 
essCertId
which is also not related.

I don't think that your point 2 has anything to do with the document, I 
did not
respond because of that although I am strongly opposed to at least some
parts of what you proposed.

peter
> We should have a similar construct for verification, but we don't.
>
> The thread initiated in January 2007 by Julien Stern has demonstrated that the current text 
> for signature verification is not clear enough. However, the text has not been clarified 
> to reflect the discussion that took place on the list. I have made a new text proposal on January 26, 
> and no one, including Russ, has ever responded to it .
>
>   
i

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf