W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > January 2011

Re: ACTION-764: Review placement of base64 alg in 1.1/2.0, should it be under transforms?

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:48:21 +0100
To: <bal@microsoft.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79ACB8A2-DFAA-40AF-908F-C1129917168E@nokia.com>
Interesting that it is defined for two (similar)  purposes.

Note that we have base64 defined in a section under Transforms, section 6.6.2

I propose:

(a) It seems we should add base64 as Required under transforms in section 6.1 since clearly from 6.6.2 it was the intent to define  the base64 transform

(b) we should keep the encoding item in 6.1 as well, add a note that the same URL is used as the base64 transform, and that this may be used in conjunction with the Object element.

Does this make sense?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:12 PM, ext Brian LaMacchia wrote:

ACTION-764 asks whether we should re-classify Base64 as a Transform Algorithm from an Encoding Algorithm in the required algorithms list (in, e.g., XMLDSIG 1.1 Section 6.1).

Looking at XMLDSIG 1.1 and XMLENC 1.1, it appears that we use the same Base64 URI in both “encoding algorithm” and “transform algorithm” contexts, and the URI is a valid in both.  For example,  in XMLDSIG 1.1 Section 4.6, there's an example in the text where we talk about putting a PNG image in an <Object> element and identifying it with encoding=<the base64 encoding URI>.  And we have a defined Encoding attribute on Object in the schema.   (We use a similar example in XMLENC Section 3.1 EncryptedType.)

I haven’t checked in 2.0 yet, but given the existing usage in 1.1 I’m not sure I’d move it under Transforms.

                                                                                --bal
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 01:49:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 01:49:11 GMT