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

Re: http://www.w3.org/2009/xmldsig11#ECKeyValue ??

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:56:09 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FFD6BF9B-DBF3-4691-AA3A-97CD18E51BBF@nokia.com>
To: ext MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Makoto


> Is "the ECPublicKey element" in Encryption 1.1 and Signature 1.1
> actually the ECKeyValue element?

Yes you are correct and Magnus has confirmed this.

I have updated the drafts for XML Signature 1.1 and XML Encryption 1.1  
to refer to ECKeyValue instead of ECPublicKey.

This should close ISSUE-194 (also duplicate ISSUE-193)

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Mar 8, 2010, at 1:42 AM, ext MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:

> Is http://www.w3.org/2009/xmldsig11#ECKeyValue a key agreement
> algorithm?  Probably, not.  But I don't think  that 5.6.4 is clear
> enough.  What's the point of showing "identifiers" in non-algorithm
> elements?  After all, XML uses qnames rather than identifiers  
> containing
> fragment identifiers.  Why does the XML Signature WG invent such
> identifiers?
>
> Is "the ECPublicKey element" in Encryption 1.1 and Signature 1.1
> actually the ECKeyValue element?
>
> Cheers,
> Makoto
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 12:56:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 March 2010 12:56:48 GMT