S/MIME examples

Jim Schaad | 16 Jul 2003 16:19

Draft-11Parital Results


People,

Here is the current state of draft 11 with my testing.  I will continue
to fill out more of the data in the this table as I get some more items
debugged in my code.  I am still trying to figure out why I cannot do
DH.

jim

4.1 	pass
4.2	pass
5.1	pass
5.2	pass
5.3  -- not checked ---
5.4	pass with comments
	1.  certificates are Alice DSS, Carl DSS (root), Alice RSA
	2.  unsigned attributes are JUST counter signature
5.5	pass
5.6	--- not checked --  - structurally fine - Diane signature
unchecked
5.7  	pass
5.8  -- not checked --
	I have an assumption that the wrong signature OID is used in the
message.
5.9  failed 
	id-dsa is the signature algorithm not id-dsa-with-sha1
	Commentary text states that the body part is the same as 5.1 -
this is not correct as the signature values and exContent are different
(content is actually "\0xd\0xaThis is some sample content."

(Continue reading)

headers

Blake Ramsdell | 16 Jul 2003 22:15

RE: Draft-11Parital Results


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Schaad [mailto:jimsch <at> nwlink.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:19 AM
> To: Ietf-Smime-Examples; ietf-smime <at> imc.org; phoffman <at> imc.org
> Cc: Sean P. Turner; Blake Ramsdell; Russ Housley
> Subject: Draft-11Parital Results
> 
> 5.9  failed 
> 	Commentary text states that the body part is the same as 5.1 -
> this is not correct as the signature values and exContent are 
> different
> (content is actually "\0xd\0xaThis is some sample content."

This is something we discussed a bit ago -- the problem is that
ExContent.bin is not valid MIME data.  The compromise we reached was
that a CRLF would be inserted at the beginning, which would make it
valid MIME data (implicit text/plain).  When the MIME wrapping is
removed, it results in ExContent.bin.

Blake

headers

Jim Schaad | 17 Jul 2003 08:29

RE: Draft-11Parital Results


Blake,

I completely agree that it was discussed.  (I think I raised the issue.)
And I agree that the content for the message is correct.  What needs to
be changed is the commentary not the message.

jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blake Ramsdell [mailto:blake <at> brutesquadlabs.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:15 PM
> To: jimsch <at> exmsft.com; 'Ietf-Smime-Examples'; 
> ietf-smime <at> imc.org; phoffman <at> imc.org
> Cc: 'Sean P. Turner'; 'Russ Housley'
> Subject: RE: Draft-11Parital Results
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Schaad [mailto:jimsch <at> nwlink.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:19 AM
> > To: Ietf-Smime-Examples; ietf-smime <at> imc.org; phoffman <at> imc.org
> > Cc: Sean P. Turner; Blake Ramsdell; Russ Housley
> > Subject: Draft-11Parital Results
> > 
> > 5.9  failed 
> > 	Commentary text states that the body part is the same 
> as 5.1 - this 
> > is not correct as the signature values and exContent are different
> > (content is actually "\0xd\0xaThis is some sample content."

(Continue reading)

headers

Blake Ramsdell | 18 Jul 2003 05:02

RE: Draft-11Parital Results


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-smime <at> mail.imc.org 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-smime <at> mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:29 PM
> To: 'Blake Ramsdell'; jimsch <at> exmsft.com; 
> 'Ietf-Smime-Examples'; ietf-smime <at> imc.org; phoffman <at> imc.org
> Cc: 'Sean P. Turner'; 'Russ Housley'
> Subject: RE: Draft-11Parital Results
> 
> What needs to
> be changed is the commentary not the message.

OK, then we need to come up with language.  Maybe:

A full S/MIME message, including MIME, that includes a MIME encoded
version of the body part from 5.1.

Blake