-----Original Message----- From: mark@coactus.com [mailto:mark@coactus.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 11:49 AM To: Luther Martin Cc: Chris Newman; Turner, Sean P.; ietf-types@iana.org; tim.polk@nist.gov Subject: Re: Review for media types: application/ibe-pp-data, application/ibe-key-request+xml, and application/ibe-pkg-reply+xml
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Luther Martin <martin@voltage.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: mark@coactus.com [mailto:mark@coactus.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
In the case of IBE, the public key is the identity, so the content of the proposed application/ibe-key-request is really just a subset of what's encoded with application/pkcs10. (It's not-self signed, etc., but that's really a minor difference.)
What's the fundamental difference between these two that warrants greatly different processing?
It's the two mandatory media type parameters as described in sec 5.4, and (unmentioned until now) the mandatory parameter in 5.7.
So if the mandatory parameter sections are deleted, then it would be OK? That's the way that the media types application/pkcs10 and application/pkcs7-mime are defined.
Right.
No problem. Communicating by e-mail just isn't as efficient as communicating in person, is it?