MIME with the Message Security Protocol
draft-housley-msp-mime-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | J. Weston Nicolls | ||
| Last updated | 1996-05-20 (Latest revision 1996-02-21) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This is the second draft of the MIME with the Message Security Protocol (MSP) specification. This document defines the conventions for using MIME and MSP together. For the most part, this specification is not controversial. However, there is some debate about signed only MSP contents. This draft documents the consensus from the MSP BOF held at the March 1996 IETF meeting. One open question was not discussed at the March 1996 IETF, and inputs are desired on this topic. Should the MIME format indicate whether a management message is being carried within the multipart/signed or multipart/encrypted content? CRL distribution is one example of such a management message.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)