W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Editorial Update: XML Signature 1.1 for KeyInfoReference

From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:41:21 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <60EA0B99-49BE-44A8-92FE-3785777A8325@nokia.com>
To: ext Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
I completed the edits for both of these. I did not change the original  
dsig schema to include the comments however.

Raised new ISSUE-188 since enc:Agreement does not appear to be defined.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:05 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:

> Frederick Hirsch wrote on 2010-02-22:
>> (2) added a warning to 4.5.3,
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/ 
>> Overview.htm#sec-
>> RetrievalMethod
> I might suggest moving the Note up next to the text discussing the  
> risks of
> Transforms. Concretely, I suggest removing the Note you added, and  
> changing
> the paragraph preceding the schema snippet to read:
> "Note that when referencing one of the defined KeyInfo types within  
> the same
> document, or some remote documents, at least one Transform is  
> required to
> turn an ID-based reference to a KeyInfo element into a child element  
> located
> inside it. This is due to the lack of an XML ID attribute on the  
> defined
> KeyInfo types. In such cases, use of KeyInfoReference is encouraged  
> instead,
> see section 4.5.10."
>> (3) Added KeyInfoReference to the 1.1 schema.
> A small point, in section 4.5, we use comments inside the schema  
> snippet for
> KeyInfo to note one of the new child elements. Seems like we should  
> put all
> the new ones there or pull the comment for the one. May also apply  
> to the
> underlying schema, I don't know if we edited that or not.
> -- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 14:42:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:13 UTC