- From: Phillip M Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:20:46 -0400
- To: <rdbrown@GlobeSet.com>, "'Bede McCall'" <bede@mitre.org>, <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org>
> 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
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 1999 14:19:39 UTC