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

Signed-XML (revised)

From: Bugbee, Larry <Larry.Bugbee@PSS.Boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:46:16 -0700
Message-ID: <6172B1AC5DDCD011BD8A00805FFED55701EE1FA2@xch-rtn-16.ca.boeing.com>
To: "'reagle@w3.org'" <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> Joseph et al,
> 
> To programmatically process a "digital" signature, I'd need to have the signature and information that would allow me to verify it (cert, CA, algorithm, public key, etc.).  Cool.  But if I programmatically encounter an "electronic" signature, I at least need to know that fact.  ...that it is a signature and not something else.  
> 
> Verification may be difficult, the burden of proof rests with the relying party, and all that, but I would need to know that the blob I'm dealing with is indeed a signature.  The type of electronic signature could start another interesting discussion, but for now I'd settle for the fact that it is an electronic signature of some type.
> 
<new para> 
And given that an electronic signature is still a signature, it should enjoy all the rights and benefits of other signatures.  ...albeit it is not cryptographically strong and verification is difficult.
</new para> 

> Do you think the wording in sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3B sufficiently captures that notion?  I'm not sure.
> 
> tx,
> 
> Larry
> 
> Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xmldsig-requirements-00.txt 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 1999 20:46:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:06 GMT