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

RE: latest edits

From: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:33:59 -0400
Message-ID: <01E1D01C12D7D211AFC70090273D20B101C4A8B6@sothmxs06.entrust.com>
To: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
To specify parameters (using the HMAC example Mark mentioned),
how about changing what we now have which is

<SignatureAlg Algorithm="urn:ietf-org:hmac-sha1">
  <Parameter type="urn:ietf-org:hmac-outputlength">
    <Integer value="128"/>
  </Parameter>
</SignatureAlg>

to [1]

<SignatureAlgorithm name="urn:ietf-org:hmac-sha1">
	<Parameter name="urn:ietf-org:hmac-outputlength">
		128
	</Parameter>
</SignatureAlgorithm>

where the "name" attribute removes the awkwardness
of saying "Algorithm" twice

OR [2]

<SignatureAlgorithm name="urn:ietf-org:hmac-sha1">
	<Parameter
		name="urn:ietf-org:hmac-outputlength"
		value="128"/>
</SignatureAlgorithm>

if you want the element value captured in an attribute

OR [3]

<SignatureAlgorithm name="urn:ietf-org:hmac-sha1">
	<Parameter
		name="urn:ietf-org:hmac-outputlength"
		type="Integer"
		value="128"/>
</SignatureAlgorithm>

if you feel capturing the integer-ness is important.

Ed

P.S. My personal preference is [1].

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bartel [mailto:mbartel@thistle.ca]
Sent: October 8, 1999 2:11 PM
To: 'IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG '
Subject: 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 14:42:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:08 GMT