Blake Ramsdell | 29 Jun 01:11 2002

Comments on new examples from Getronics


John, thank you for providing the revised examples.  I have some comments:

In my testing, example 5.6 appears to have switched the order of the
SignerInfos.  I do not have access to the examples draft, so I don't know
what the spirit of this test was.  It is most likely not an issue.

I have the following comments about 5.8.eml and 5.9.eml.  Most of them are
MIME formatting issues, and will not affect the CMS portion of the messages.

* Both files are missing the MIME-Version header.  I believe that the spirit
of these files is that they are valid MIME messages, and thus require this
header.

* The timezone for 5.9 doesn't match the comment (-0300 and Eastern Standard
Time).  This is not required for correct operation, however, and is not
critical to fix.

* The Content-Type header for 5.9 is not correct:

Content-Type: Application/pkcs7-mime;name=smime.p7m;filename=smime.p7m;
        micalg=SHA-1;
        protocol=application/pkcs7-signature

I believe it should be replaced with:

Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime;name=smime.p7m
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7m

Which fixes a few issues, including the inclusion of the micalg and protocol
(Continue reading)

Pawling, John | 1 Jul 23:57 2002

RE: Comments on new examples from Getronics


Hi Blake,

Thank you for your feedback.  We will respond in detail to you comments later in July.

Thanks,
===========================================
John Pawling, John.Pawling <at> GetronicsGov.com
Getronics Government Solutions, LLC
=========================================== 

-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Ramsdell [mailto:blake <at> brutesquadlabs.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 7:11 PM
To: Pawling, John; IETF-SMIME-Examples
Subject: Comments on new examples from Getronics

John, thank you for providing the revised examples.  I have some comments:

In my testing, example 5.6 appears to have switched the order of the
SignerInfos.  I do not have access to the examples draft, so I don't know
what the spirit of this test was.  It is most likely not an issue.

I have the following comments about 5.8.eml and 5.9.eml.  Most of them are
MIME formatting issues, and will not affect the CMS portion of the messages.

* Both files are missing the MIME-Version header.  I believe that the spirit
of these files is that they are valid MIME messages, and thus require this
header.

(Continue reading)


Gmane