- From: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:45:50 -0500
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: XMLSec WG <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
I don't think we should add any more RetrievalMethod types if we are thinking of deprecating or changing RetrievalMethod in 2.0. Adding more types means we have to add interop tests which seems like a waste of resources. --Sean Thomas Roessler wrote: > RFC 4051, section 3.2 defines a number of additional RetrievalMethod > Type values, some of which correspond to elements in XML Signature. > >> Identifiers: >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#KeyValue >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#RetrievalMethod >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#KeyName >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawX509CRL >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawPGPKeyPacket >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawSPKISexp >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsigmore#PKCS7signedData >> http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rawPKCS7signedData > > Shall we lift any (or all) of these into XML Signature 1.1? > > Should they be covered in the algorithms cross-reference? > > Thanks, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org <mailto:tlr@w3.org>> > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 14:46:33 UTC