Subject: Differences between DOMSEC 07 and 08

From: "William Ottaway" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:58:53 -0000

Hi,

Differences between DOMSEC 07 and DOMSEC 08

1) A few typos.

2) Russ Housley's comments made in message "Re: WG Last Call:
draft-ietf-smime-domsec-07.txt" 9th January 2001. Including extra text else
where in the draft to support some of these comments.

3) Added text in section 5, point 3) a), sub point five, "If local policy
requires the message to be encrypted using S/MIME encryption before leaving
the domain then encapsulate ...".

Also, added the paragraph: -

"If local policy does not require the message to be encrypted using S/MIME
encryption but there is an envelopedData at a lower level within the message
then the 'domain signature' MUST be encapsulated by an envelopedData as
described above"

This is because a MLA will strip off the outer signatures down to the
enveloped data thereby removing the domain signature.

Also added the paragraph: -

"An example when it may not be local policy to require S/MIME encryption is
when there is a link crypto present."

4) Section 5 point 5) added the paragraph: -

"If local policy does not require the message to be encrypted using S/MIME
encryption but there is an envelopedData at a lower level within the message
then the 'domain signature'MUST be encapsulated by an envelopedData as
described above"

5) Section 5.1. Added the statement: -

"All of the signedData objects are valid and none of them are a domain
signature. If a signedData object was a domain signature then it would not
be necessary to validate any further signedData objects."

6) Section 5.1, examples 4) and 6). Added text to cover situation where
local policy does not require S/MIME encryption.

7) Section 5.1. A new example 7) to show how a message with two
envelopedData objects is handled.

Bill

"The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent
correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended
recipient(s).  For those other than the intended recipient any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to
be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be
unlawful."
____________________________________________________
 William Ottaway BSc Hons CEng MBCS,
 Woodward B009,               Tel: +44 (0) 1684 894079
 DERA Malvern,                Fax: +44 (0) 1684 896660
 St. Andrews Road,            email: [email-masked]
 Malvern,
 Worcs,
 WR14 3PS

 All opinions are my own.

---

From: "Dick Brooks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:41:51 -0600

Does anyone know if interop testing has been performed between the S/MIME
SFL and Mozilla's Network Security Services [1]? The current interop matrix
[2] doesn't mention NSS, so I'm assuming the answer is no.

Has anyone informally done any interop testing between NSS and SFL? If so,
would you like to share your experiences.

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/
[2] http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/interop-matrix.html

Thanks,

Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
[email-masked]
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions