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

RE: RE: Locations but not Transforms as hints

From: Bugbee, Larry <Larry.Bugbee@PSS.Boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:00:46 -0800
Message-ID: <6172B1AC5DDCD011BD8A00805FFED55702D1C504@xch-rtn-16.ca.boeing.com>
To: rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us, "'Chris Smithies'" <Chris_Smithies@penop.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Thank you Chris...   I agree or I am likewise confused.  

Larry

> ----------
> From: 	Chris Smithies[SMTP:Chris_Smithies@penop.com]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, November 24, 1999 10:46 AM
> To: 	rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us
> Cc: 	w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
> Subject: 	Re:RE: Locations but not Transforms as hints
> 
> 
> 
> Yes: it seems simple to me. Have a Location which the core can use to fetch
> the document for verification; but don't include the Location in
> SignedInfo, otherwise moving the document breaks the signature (at least,
> as far as the core is concerned). Then, if the document changes location,
> simply change the Location field accordingly. Isn't it as simple as that?
> 
> Why, when no other kind of electronic signature is invalidated by changing
> the document's location, should XML signatures be any different? I can't
> see why. Perhaps some kind and patient person could explain to me what I am
> missing here.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 14:01:12 GMT

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