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