RE: Post-last-call status of the S/MIME examples draft

Some more input

5.9.eml
	Jim Schaad:  Fail
		signatureAlgorithm of dsa not dsaWithSha1

11.3.bin
	Jim Schaad:  Pass

I think I should be able to work through all of sections 6, 8 & 9 by the
end of this week.  I don't have anything external on my plate at the
moment.

jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman / IMC
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 6:11 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Post-last-call status of the S/MIME examples draft
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings again. Here's my collected notes from the WG mailing list, 
> the smime-examples mailing list, and off-list mail. I summarize at 
> the end.
> 
> ====================
> 
> 4. Trivial Examples
> 
> 4.1 ContentInfo with Data type, BER
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: tested OK.
> 
> 4.2 ContentInfo with Data type, DER
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: tested OK.
> 
> 5.  Signed-data
>    Jim Schaad pointed out that many examples had the
>      signatureAlgorithm of 1.2.840.10040.4.1 (dsa) but it 
> should instead
>      be 1.2.840.10040.4.3 (dsaWithSha1).
>    The general decision was that the examples should have dsaWithSha1.
>    John Pawling and Sue Beauchamp at DigitalNet agreed to re-generate
>      the examples.
> 
> 5.1 Basic signed content, DSS
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: failed.
>      signatureAlgorithm is dsa but should be dsaWithSha1
>    Sue Beauchamp sent new example file.
> 
> 5.2 Basic signed content, RSA
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: tested OK.
> 
> 5.3 Basic signed content, detached content
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: failed.
> 	Contains Alice's RSA certificate
> 	No content hint unsigned attribute
>      signatureAlgorithm is dsa but should be dsaWithSha1
>    Sue Beauchamp sent new example file.
> 
> 5.4 Fancier signed content
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Sue Beauchamp sent new example file.
> 
> 5.5 All RSA signed message
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: tested OK.
> 
> 5.6 Multiple signers
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: failed.
>      signatureAlgorithm is dsa but should be dsaWithSha1
>    Sue Beauchamp sent new example file.
> 
> 5.7 Signing using SKI
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: failed.
>      signatureAlgorithm is dsa but should be dsaWithSha1
>    Sue Beauchamp sent new example file.
> 
> 5.8 S/MIME multipart/signed message
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
> 
> 5.9 S/MIME application/pkcs7-mime signed message
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
> 
> 5.10 SignedData With Attributes
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
>    Jim Schaad: failed.
> 	Change "unknown OID" to "unknown OID (1.2.5555)"
> 	Content Hint should have an OID of 1.2.840.113549.1.7.1
> 	Content Identifier attribute absent
> 	Contains Security Label attribute
> 	Contains encrypt key preference attribute
> 	Contains ML Expansion History attribute
> 	Contains Equivalent Label attribute
> 
> 5.11 SignedData with Certificates Only
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
> 
> 6.  Enveloped-data
> 
> 6.1 Basic encrypted content, TripleDES and DH
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 6.2 Basic encrypted content, TripleDES and RSA
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
> 
> 6.3 Basic encrypted content, RC2/40 and RSA
>    Blake Ramsdell: this is actually a 128-bit key.
>    Jeff Jacoby: confirmed Blake's assertion.
>    Paul Hoffman: thinks we could just change the title of the example.
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
> 
> 6.4 Encrypted content, two recipients, no shared keying material
>    John Pawling: tested OK but noted unsuccessful Invalid tag for
>      privateKeyInfo for second login.
> 
> 6.5 Encrypted content, two recipients, shared keying material
>    John Pawling: could not test due to bug in his code.
> 
> 6.6 Encrypted content, TripleDES and DH, previously-distributed keys
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 6.7 Encrypted content, RC2/40 and RSA, previously-distributed keys
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 6.8 S/MIME application/pkcs7-mime encrypted message
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 6.9 EnvelopedData with All Recipient Types
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 6.10 EnvelopedData with KARI RC2 Encryption
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 6.11 EnvelopedData with KEK 3DES Encryption
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 7. Digested-data
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
> 
> 8. Encrypted-data
> 
> 8.1 Simple EncryptedData
>    Blake Ramsdell: tested OK.
> 
> 8.2 EncryptedData with unprotected attributes
> 
> 9. Authenticated-data
>    There are still no examples in this section.
> 
> 10. Key Wrapping
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 10.1 Wrapping RC2
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 10.2 Wrapping TripleDES
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 11. ESS Examples
> 
> 11.1 ReceiptRequest
>    John Pawling: test failed, has sent new example file.
> 
> 11.2 Receipt
>    John Pawling: test failed, has sent new example file.
> 
> 11.3 eSSSecurityLabel
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 11.4 EquivalentLabels
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 11.5 mlExpansionHistory
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> 11.6 SigningCertificate
>    John Pawling: tested OK.
> 
> ====================
> 
> Everything has been tested by at least one person *except* "8.2 
> EncryptedData with unprotected attributes". If no ones tests this, we 
> will probably get rid of it. Can anyone whose software handles 
> EncryptedData please test example 8.2 and let me and/or the list know 
> the results?
> 
> All examples that had test failures have been re-submitted to my by 
> the DigitalNet folks *except* 5.10, which Jim Schaad had a lot of 
> problems with. Could someone generate a new example of 5.10? It would 
> be valuable to have it in the document.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium
>