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

Re: Updated (v2) proposed XML Encryption 1.1 changes related to OAEP

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:41:05 +0000
To: <cantor.2@osu.edu>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <mnystrom@microsoft.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B0E473AB-89A7-4717-9A99-818A015D4097@nokia.com>
Right, I thought this would be the case..

I think we should go with the element. Same effect, avoid a number of issues.

Anyone disagree?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:44 PM, ext Cantor, Scott wrote:

> On 10/7/11 8:35 AM, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com"
> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Note that this is not the 1.1 schema but the 1.0 schema. However, this
>> seems appropriate and as the new attribute is optional should not hurt
>> existing implementations.
> Ordinarily, no, you can't do this. The only caveat that might make it ok
> here is that the Algorithm is new. A 1.0 implementation wouldn't handle
> the algorithm, so you're moving a failure from one layer to another.
> That said, this is generally just not done. There are assumptions built
> into the whole house of cards of XSD aware software, and it just doesn't
> fly.
> There's a simple fix, just use an element. EncryptionMethod has a wildcard
> in it, it's just not an attribute wildcard.
> <xenc11:MGF Algorithm="..."/>
> -- Scott
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 17:41:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:17 UTC