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

Re: Signed-XML (revised) ("Electronic" Signature in RD)

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:36:39 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990625143639.00a4b900@localhost>
To: "Bugbee, Larry" <Larry.Bugbee@PSS.Boeing.com>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 05:46 PM 6/23/99 -0700, Bugbee, Larry wrote:
 ><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.
 
I think this is the notion that has been raised in the past, for instance
see [1], and Boyer's response which I think is a fair assesment of people's
thoughts on it. However, since this question does keep popping up, it'd make
for a good requirement, one way or the other. I'm sort of the mind that it
should be possible given whatever we do for digital signatures if the design
is general. However at some point, it'd help me to see some examples of what
people are speaking off given the syntax we end up adopting.

I'd be happy to include any specific proposals (2/3 sentences, worded like
the other requirements)   with respect to electronic signatures in the
requirements document.



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/1999AprJun/0049.html
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 25 June 1999 14:36:43 GMT

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