RE: XML interface with URIs

> Phill,
>
> Agreed that CMS shall refer to the IETF specification. However, a large
> majority of existing implementations are PKCS#7 and not CMS. So, I do not
> understand the argument developed previously on the list - I thought that
> support for CMS was motivated by the possibility to leverage existing
> implementations!
>
> Recall that CMS and PKCS#7 SignedData type are very similar, but there are
> not compatible even if you disregard CMS added functionality.

I think that given the existing level of S/MIME deployment we can expect
S/MIME 3 to be well established by the time a signed XML proposal begins
to appear.

		Phill