W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > July 2012

RE: PBKDF2 schema in Enc 1.1

From: Magnus Nystrom <mnystrom@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:23:26 +0000
To: "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D744D68428430B4F9C81DE8A4D595068158C954A@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Hi Scott,
I don't know what version you're looking at, but there is an "anyURI" type on that "Algorithm" attribute in the schema associated with the 3/12/2012 draft. The "Parameter" element, as any element type without a Type specification, will get the "anyType" as you surmise (see e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#anyType). I don't see a reason to change this as it is the default.

As for the wholesale copying, I agree. However, this was the decision of the group at the time; some people voiced concern over having a dependency on an external publication (see some of the thread here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0004.html)

-- Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cantor, Scott [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 8:19 AM
> To: public-xmlsec@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PBKDF2 schema in Enc 1.1
> Actually on second read, the whole type is a bit underspecified, but I also see
> that it's that way because it's also broken in the RSA schema. So I guess that's
> a good reason not to reuse it, but it should be fixed.
> According to the reference source, the Algorithm there is definitely anyURI,
> but I'm not sure what the Parameters element is meant to be. I think an
> element defined with no type may be anyType, but I'd have to check. Either
> way, it shouldn't be unstated.
> -- Scott
> On 7/2/12 11:16 AM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
> >Was reviewing the PBKDF material for possible use in a spec I'm working
> >on, and I think there's an error. The AlgorithmIdentifierType complex
> >type has an attribute defined named Algorithm that I assume should be
> >an anyURI type, but has no type defined. Whatever it's type, it should be
> specified.
> >
> >Also, it seems ill-advised to me to copy-in-place wholesale the
> >RSA-defined PBKDF schema instead of just reusing it directly, but maybe
> >there's a reason.
Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 17:24:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:18 UTC