W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Namespace treatment for C14N

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:34:31 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: dee3@us.ibm.com
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 12:14 PM 6/8/99 -0400, dee3@us.ibm.com wrote:
 >It's the hash of the URI, not the hash of what the URI points to.

That's how I first read it and thought, "that doesn't abide by the 'fixed
point property.' " But I thought, why bother? So I reread the following

 > >2. Hex coding of MD5 of the Expanded URI is used as the new prefix.

to read fetch the resource for security; which still didn't abide by the
fixed point property.

A hash of a hash will still be a different hash regardless if the first was
generated from the URI string or it's resource.

1. Why bother with a hash of the URI string? Why not use the URI?
2. Is it worth losing "fixed point" because of it?

Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst      mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-DSig Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 1999 14:34:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:31 UTC