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

Re: ISSUE-186: What is the normative content of section 5.4.2? (PBKDF2) [Enc11 (XML Encryption 1.1)]

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:41:47 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XML Security Working Group WG <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <64052E52-E5A9-450C-954E-4003CDFE19F3@nokia.com>
To: ext Magnus Nystrom <mnystrom@microsoft.com>
+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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 January 2010 14:42:56 GMT