RE: latest edits

I don't feel strongly about this, but...

I like the <Digest Algorithm="...">[digest value]</Digest> change, except
that I'd also like consistency with other elements (Canonicalization but
SignatureAlg?).  Also, how would we do algorithm parameters?  Look at the
HMAC example in the current draft [1].  The content of the SignatureAlg
element is the parameter.  We'd want a consistent mechanism for parameters
if a digest algorithm came along that required parameters.  I don't want to
mix the parameters with the value.

I like this for DigestAlg because the proposed combined Digest element
contains the digest value.  For the CanonicalizationAlg and particularly the
SignatureAlg elements I'd be less keen on the change.  I don't like the idea
of having an element called Signature that doesn't contain a signature.
Therefore I currently lean towards keeping all of them the same.

-Mark Bartel
JetForm

[1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/WD-xmldsig-core-991008.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG
Sent: 10/8/99 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: latest edits 

I think both changes are great ideas...
Donald

From:  Greg Whitehead <gwhitehead@signio.com>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 8 Oct 1999 12:43:16 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id:  <199910081643.MAA29771@www19.w3.org>
Message-ID:
<6B962A1EE646D31193270008C7A4BAB5093388@mail.paymentnet.com>
To:  "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>,
            David Solo
    	 <david.solo@citicorp.com>
Cc:  IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Date:  Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:42:48 -0700 

>> 6. Was think that when I replaced all '<c14nAlg Algorithm="..."'>
>>    with '<CanonicalizationAlg Algorithm="..."'>, I realized it looked
>>    silly. Should we make it  '<Canonicalization Algorithm="...">'?
>
>I like '<Canonicalization Algorithm="...">', but it suggests that
>
>	<DigestAlg Algorithm="urn:nist-gov:sha1"/>
       a23bcd43</DigestAlg>
>
>Should become
>
>	<Digest Algorithm="urn:nist-gov:sha1">a23bcd43"</Digest>
>
>Which I also like.
>
>-Greg
>

Received on Friday, 8 October 1999 14:11:05 UTC