RE: other comments on AS2 draft

Yes, something like this would be perfect. I understand this is the same section as AS.1, but I don't feel it was enough in this specification, neither. The difference is that the latter is already an RFC and should not be changed.
Of course it is not absolutely necessary to change this section, as it was enough in the previous RFC. But I think it would make this draft rather easier to understand at once.

Antoine Alberti

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Kyle Meadors [mailto:[email protected]]
> Envoyé : vendredi 23 janvier 2004 12:36
> À : Alberti Antoine
> Cc : [email protected]
> Objet : RE: other comments on AS2 draft
> 
> 
> Alberti,
> 
> Exactly what comments do you feel should be added? Something 
> like this: 
> 
> A signed payload is contained within two parts of multipart 
> structure. The
> first part is the document itself and the second part the 
> pkcs-7 signature.
> Encryption, when present, always occurs after applying the signature.
> 
> The hierarchy structure is 4.2 is similar to that found in 
> the AS1 RFC 3335,
> which this draft is based off. In fact section 4.0 is nearly 
> identical to
> 4.0 in RFC 3335.
> 
> Kyle Meadors
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Alberti Antoine
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3:56 AM
> To: Kyle Meadors
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: 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.
> >  
> 
> 
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004
>  
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004
>  
> 
>