RFC 3274: Compressed Data Content Type for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document defines a format for using compressed data as a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) content type. Compressing data before transmission provides a number of advantages, including the elimination of data redundancy which could help an attacker, speeding up processing by reducing the amount of data to be processed by later steps (such as signing or encryption), and reducing overall message size. Although there have been proposals for adding compression at other levels (for example at the MIME or SSL level), these don't address the problem of compression of CMS content unless the compression is supplied by an external means (for example by intermixing MIME and CMS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3274
- Published
- June 2002
- Authors
- P. Gutmann
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- sec
- Pages
- 6
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3370Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) AlgorithmsUpdated
September 2002
- RFC 3560Use of the RSAES-OAEP Key Transport Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)Current
July 2003
- RFC 2984Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in CMSCurrent
October 2000
- RFC 3565Use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Encryption Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)Current
July 2003
- RFC 3657Use of the Camellia Encryption Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)Current
January 2004
- RFC 3852Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)Obsoleted
July 2004
- RFC 4049BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for Representing Date and Time in ASN.1Obsoleted
April 2005
- RFC 5485Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft DocumentsUpdated
March 2009
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?