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

Re: parameters (was RE: latest edits )

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:03:24 -0400
Message-Id: <199910130403.AAA15184@torque.pothole.com>
To: Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca>
cc: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

From:  Mark Bartel <mbartel@thistle.ca>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id:  <199910121620.MAA01995@www19.w3.org>
Message-ID:  <91F20911A6C0D2118DF80040056D77A2032A09@arren.cpu1634.adsl.bellglobal.co
To:  "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Date:  Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:20:11 -0400

>Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>>I'm not sure we need a syntax for algorithm parameters.  And if we do,
>>this seems awfully bulky.  I mean, if an algorithm takes one integer
>>parameter, I'd kind of prefer A below.  I can see B.  But C seems like
>>overkill to me.
>>A.		1
>>B.		<Integer>1</Integer>
>>C.		<Parameter type="http://dsig.reg.int/integer">1</Parameter>
>I'm not keen on B either.  What I was thinking for C was (as in the HMAC
>example) that the type would be specific to the algorithm.  So I would
>rewrite C as
>D.   <Parameter type="urn:ietf-org:hmac-truncation-length>128</Parameter>

I'll buy that if "type" is optional.  :-) It really seems kind of like
a comment to me.  It might help the human reader but isn't necessary
to the algorithm in most cases.

>The idea being to provide a standard mechanism for sticking in
>parameter-name/value pairs.  Clearly more important for the
>multiple-parameter case.  But for multiple parameters we could always allow
>something like
>E.  128,52
>which is just the example A with another parameter.  I don't like E because
>it creates a new, non-XML syntax to distinguish separate parameters.  Going
>with D lets the XML parser do almost all of the work (with the exception of
>the string to integer conversion).
>Summary:  I prefer D, but I like A/E better than B or C.
>And perhaps we don't need to define a general syntax, but we do need to
>provide syntax for the parameters of those algorithms that we define.  Doing
>so sets the precedent for future algorithm parameter definitions, and so in
>a way does "define" the parameter syntax.
>-Mark Bartel

Received on Wednesday, 13 October 1999 00:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:32 UTC