RE: Who has tried some or all of the S/MIME examples?

Having looked at the back history of the last argument.  It appears that
Blake argued that the correct think was to use id-dsa-with-sha1 and get
over the fact that it's not consistant with the use of rsa-encryption.
Thus I think that Blake's solution below is correct and the examples
should be corrected to be "Correct".

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blake Ramsdell [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:00 PM
> To: [email protected]; 'Paul Hoffman / IMC'; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Who has tried some or all of the S/MIME examples?
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Schaad [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:13 PM
> > To: 'Blake Ramsdell'; 'Paul Hoffman / IMC'; 
> > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Who has tried some or all of the S/MIME examples?
> > 
> > 5.1.bin - failed
> > 	1.  signatureAlgorithm is 1.2.840.10040.4.1 not 
> 1.2.840.10040.4.3
> 
> From RFC3370, section 3.1:
> 
>    The algorithm identifier for DSA with SHA-1 signature values is:
> 
>       id-dsa-with-sha1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
>           us(840) x9-57 (10040) x9cm(4) 3 }
> 
>    When the id-dsa-with-sha1 algorithm identifier is used, the
>    AlgorithmIdentifier parameters field MUST be absent.
> 
> 
> From RFC2630, section 12.2.1:
> 
>    The DSA signature algorithm is defined in FIPS Pub 186 
> [DSS].  DSA is
>    always used with the SHA-1 message digest algorithm.  The algorithm
>    identifier for DSA is:
> 
>       id-dsa-with-sha1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=  { iso(1) member-body(2)
>           us(840) x9-57 (10040) x9cm(4) 3 }
> 
>    The AlgorithmIdentifier parameters field must not be present.
> 
> 
> From RFC2633, section 2.2:
> 
>    Sending and receiving agents MUST support id-dsa defined in [DSS].
>    The algorithm parameters MUST be absent (not encoded as NULL).
> 
> 
> From RFC2633, Appendix A:
> 
> -- id-dsa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
> --    {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) x9-57(10040) x9cm(4) 1 }
> 
> 
> From rfc2633bis-03:
> 
> Receiving agents MUST support id-dsa defined in [CMSALG]. The 
> algorithm parameters MUST be absent (not encoded as NULL). 
> Receiving agents MUST support rsaEncryption, defined in [CMSALG].
> 
> 
> From RFC3370, section 3.1:
> 
>       id-dsa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
>           us(840) x9-57 (10040) x9cm(4) 1 }
> 
> 
> So the bottom line is that CMS says one thing 
> (id-dsa-with-sha1), and MSG says something else (id-dsa).  
> Consensus welcome.  We went round and round about this at one 
> point, due to the use of the rsaEncryption value vs. the use 
> of the sha-1WithRSAEncryption value.
> 
> Recommend accept both, emit id-dsa-with-sha1, change the 
> samples to use id-dsa-with-sha1 and changing rfc2633bis to say:
> 
> 
> 2.2 SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier
> 
> Receiving agents MUST support id-dsa-with-sha1 defined in 
> [CMSALG]. The algorithm parameters MUST be absent (not 
> encoded as NULL). Receiving agents MUST support 
> rsaEncryption, defined in [CMSALG].
> 
> Sending agents MUST support either id-dsa-with-sha1 or rsaEncryption.
> 
> Note that S/MIME v3 clients might only implement signing or 
> signature verification using id-dsa-with-sha1, and might also 
> use id-dsa as an AlgorithmIdentifier in this field. Receiving 
> clients SHOULD recognize id-dsa as equivalent to 
> id-dsa-with-sha1, and sending clients MUST use 
> id-dsa-with-sha1 if using that algorithm. Also note that 
> S/MIME v2 clients are only capable of verifying digital 
> signatures using the rsaEncryption algorithm.
> 
> Blake
>