Re: Proposed Up/Down protocol description

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

At 05:05 PM 23/05/2007, Robert Loomans wrote:

> > BUT if the Signing Time attribute of the CMS wrapper is NOT protected by
> > the CMS digital signature then my assumption is _not_ valid (!)
> >
> > ***Does anyone want to confirm that the digital signature of CMS covers
> > the Signing Time attribute?
>
> In RFC 3852, section 11.3:
>
>    The signing-time attribute MUST be a signed attribute or an
>    authenticated attribute; it MUST NOT be an unsigned attribute,
>    unauthenticated attribute, or unprotected attribute.

phew! :-)

thanks for the catch Rob