Subject: RE: cmsalg-02 RSA OID Proposal

From: "Pawling, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:10:52 -0400

Blake,

I agree with your point that the RFC 2630 specification of
signatureAlgorithm OIDs is inconsistent (i.e. id-dsa-with-sha1 is
inconsistent with rsaEncryption).  However, I disagree with your statement
that id-dsa-with-sha1 doesn't work as an indicator of "what identifier from
a certificate's SubjectPublicKeyInfo would be required to verify this
signature".  It is straightforward to develop CMS implementations to
recognize that the presence of the id-dsa-with-sha1 OID in the signedData
signerInfo signatureAlgorithm field indicates that the certificate required
to verify the signature must contain the id-dsa OID in the
SubjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field.  Similarly, it is straightforward to
develop CMS implementations to recognize that the presence of either the
md5WithRSAEncryption or sha1WithRSAEncryption OID in the signedData
signerInfo signatureAlgorithm field indicates that the certificate required
to verify the signature must contain the rsaEncryption OID in the
SubjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field.

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

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 11:31:11 -0400

Hey everyone.

Perhaps the CMSALG document should include the specifications for both 
approaches.  Then, the upcoming MSG update will deal with the MUST and 
SHOULD statements.

What do you think?

Russ