- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:41:47 -0500
- To: ext Magnus Nystrom <mnystrom@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XML Security Working Group WG <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
+1 regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jan 29, 2010, at 12:35 AM, ext Magnus Nystrom wrote: > I don't quite understand your concern here, Thomas. In my opinion, > this section does define a profile of PKCS #5 v2.0 Amd.1 - it > specifies requirements on certain elements and also explains how > instances of types defined in the PKCS document is to be used within > XMLENC 1.1. The algorithm is also clearly marked as optional. > > And I don't see what difference it makes if the algorithm identifier > is defined elsewhere? As long as it is clearly stated where the > algorithm (and the XML schema) is defined I don't see why there > should be confusion? > > -- Magnus > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-xmlsec-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xmlsec- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of XML Security Working Group Issue Tracker >> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:46 AM >> To: public-xmlsec@w3.org >> Subject: ISSUE-186: What is the normative content of section 5.4.2? >> (PBKDF2) [Enc11 (XML Encryption 1.1)] >> >> >> ISSUE-186: What is the normative content of section 5.4.2? (PBKDF2) >> [Enc11 (XML Encryption 1.1)] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/186 >> >> Raised by: Thomas Roessler >> On product: Enc11 (XML Encryption 1.1) >> >> Looking through recent edits to XML Encryption, section 5.4.2 seems >> to >> have moved in when I wasn't paying attention. I'd like to understand >> what the normative content of this section is that *isn't* simply >> reproduced from another spec: >> >> - the algorithm identifier is in RSA's URI space (and presumably >> coined >> there) >> - the mark-up and namespaces are defined in an RSA specification >> - we don't seem to do additional profiling as far as I can tell >> >> Therefore, a pointer at that RSA spec as another example for an >> algorithm that can be used within the key derivation framework >> would be >> fine; however, I don't think we should actually have normative text. >> >> My apologies for not having spotted this one earlier. >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 14:42:54 UTC