RE: other comments on AS2 draft

I think section '4.2 Structure of an Internet EDI MIME message' could be enhanced with a little bit of text. Considering S/MIME, it is not obvious that a signature is done using a mutipart/signed with a sign-only part (which is a secondary choice in this RFC). Neither is it obvious whether it is encapsulated in an EnvelopedData to be enciphered or encapsulates an EnvelopedData that is then signed.
What if a product uses a usual S/MIME v3 encapsulation, that is MIME(EnvelopedData(MIME(SignedData(MIME(CompressedData(MIME)))))), and adds the AS.2 fields if the outermost MIME header?
This would remove any ambiguity at very low cost, so it seems interesting.
Regards.

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]De la part de Kyle Meadors
> Envoyé : jeudi 22 janvier 2004 22:57
> À : [email protected]
> Objet : other comments on AS2 draft
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have any additional comments on the draft?
> 
> Kyle Meadors
> Drummond Group Inc.
>