In your previous mail you wrote:
I checked with some people on renaming the receipentKeyId field to
recipientKeyid, and it's a no go. That name is used by compilers to name C
code and changing it is going to cause problems. It's also been mispelled
since about 1999 and nobody has sa
I checked with some people on renaming the receipentKeyId field to
recipientKeyid, and it's a no go. That name is used by compilers to name C
code and changing it is going to cause problems. It's also been mispelled
since about 1999 and nobody has said anything ;) I added a note in the ASN.1
that
Francis,
Thanks for your comments. The only one I feel like I should reply to is the
comment on is 3.4.3.2: we do require SHA-256, which is a SHA2 algorithm,
just not the others. Basically, we had to pick one and SHA-256 seemed like
the one to go with. Technically, we could remove the paragrap
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-smime
