Open for discussion
3. Referenced RFC's and their contribution
3.1 RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol [3]
RFC 959 specifies how data is transferred using the File Transfer
Protocol (FTP)
3.2 RFC 2228: FTP Security Extensions [4]
This RFC describes a framework for providing security services to
FTP.
3.3 RFC 1847: MIME Security Multiparts [7]
This document defines security multiparts for MIME:
multipart/encrypted and multipart/signed.
3.4 RFC 1892: Multipart/report [12]
RFC 1892 defines the use of the multipart/report content type, upon
which RFC 2298 builds to define the Message Disposition Notification.
3.5 RFC 1767: EDI Content [2]
This RFC defines the use of content type "application" for ANSI X12
(application/EDI-X12), EDIFACT (application/EDIFACT) and mutually
defined EDI (application/EDI-Consent).
3.6 RFC 2045, 2046, and 2049: MIME [1]
Harding, Scott [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT FTP Transport Data for EDIINT April 2005
These are the basic MIME standards, upon which all MIME related
RFCs build, including this one. Key contributions include definition
of "content type", "sub-type" and "multipart", as well as encoding
guidelines, which establishes 7-bit US-ASCII as the canonical
character set to be used in Internet messaging.
3.7 RFC 2298: Message Disposition Notification [6]
This Internet RFC defines how a Message Disposition Notification
(MDN)
is requested, as well as the format and syntax of the MDN. The MDN is
the vehicle used by this specification to provide both signed and
unsigned receipts.
3.8 RFC 2630:CMS[9] and 2633 S/MIME Version 3 Message
Specifications[10].
This specification describes how MIME shall carry Cryptographic
Message
Syntax (CMS) Objects.
3.9 RFC 2632: S/MIME Version 3 Certificate Handling [11]
RFC 2632 describes certificate handling in the context of CMS and
S/MIME.
3.10 RFC 3274: Compressed Data Content Type for Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS) [17]
This specification provides a mechanism to wrap compressed data
within a
CMS object.
3.11 RFC 3023: XML Media Types [16]
This RFC defines the use of content type "application" for XML. Note
that while conforming implementations SHOULD support the expanded
syntax
that RFC 3023 introduces for the "+xml" suffix, no support for
external
parsed entity types is anticipated (as it adds significant complexity
to
signature processing).
*****************************************************
Terry Harding
Cyclone Commerce Inc.
|
