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

AW: Re[2]: Omitting Location and Transforms from SignedInfo

From: Peter Lipp <Peter.Lipp@iaik.at>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:59:17 +0100
To: <rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <jboyer@uwi.com>, <gwhitehead@signio.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLDEHJKOODMJCNBNCOEOPCNAA.Peter.Lipp@iaik.at>
> It really concerns me that there is so little concern about
> locating objects.
I strongly believe don't think finding an object has anything todo with
digital signatures. I am still waiting for somebody giving a real life
example where you have the signature, and the signature only, and go off
searching for the corresponding data. The other way, having the data and
looking for a signature, might be more appropriate, but in that case any
unique id is fine (so I really liked Josephs suggestion to use the hash).


> Is a floating location any better?
One still can use any form of location as a hint or so in any place you
want. But it is not required for solving the signature "problem".

Peter
Thank you for your interest into our products!

Peter Lipp
______________________________________
Dr. Peter Lipp
IAIK, TU Graz
Inffeldgasse 16a, A-8010 Graz, Austria
Tel: +43 316 873 5513
Fax: +43 316 873 5520
Web: www.iaik.at





Received on Wednesday, 17 November 1999 15:59:19 GMT

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