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

AW: revised XML signature syntax from Oslo

From: Peter Lipp <Peter.Lipp@iaik.at>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:56:21 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990719095621.00a82300@localhost>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
[This email was bounced to me because the address above is not the one on
the accept/dist list, however I've added the address above to the complement
accept list. -- Reagle]

___

>         <KeyingInfo/>
>         <sig-alg/>

I was wondering if it did not make sense to combine those two parts into
something like

>         <sig-alg AlgorithmName>
>            <Alg-Info/>
>            <KeyingInfo/>
>         <sig-alg/>
Reason: Keyinginfo will most likely be highly dependent on Alg-Info.
Especially when considering symmetric variants, I'd highly appreciate the
possibility to not keep their specifications together with the asymmetric
ones and grouping them would a) enable us to sepearte algorithm-specific
specifications into separate documents if we decide to do so and b) allow
for modular, plugable provider-like implementations using kind of a
standard-API a'la the JCE provider stuff. Obviously we could do so without
modification, but I'd like that better. Comments?

> Manifest is an opaque Blob
Yes, I agree, but I also would like to have some kind of document discussing
reasonable behaviour when constructing/validating/manipulating manifests
etc. Outside the core spec obviously.

Peter
---------------------------------
Dr. Peter Lipp
IAIK, TU Graz
Email Peter.Lipp@iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5513
Fax   +43 316 873 5510
Web   http://jcewww.iaik.tu-graz.ac.at






Received on Monday, 19 July 1999 09:56:22 GMT

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