W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:20:57 +0100
Message-Id: <200007182220.XAA10671@bobcat.baltimore.ie>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
r/reagle@w3.org/2000.07.18/16:28:39
>At 19:30 7/18/00 +0100, Merlin Hughes wrote:
> >The Schema has mandatory content for the Type element. This
> >seems wrong because it can't then be implemented interoperably
> >without further specification.
> 
>Are you suggestion it be change to optional?
>
>   <element name='Type'>
>     <complexType content='mixed'>
>       <any namespace='##other' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
>        ...

Something of that nature. RetrievalMethod simply seems
underspecified given that it "SHOULD" be implemented.
By making some of those parts optional, it could be
read as minimally and sufficiently specified.

For example, it seems reasonable to present a RetrievalMethod
with the Location:

  ldap://ldap.baltimore.ie/CN=merlin?userCertificate;binary

What, in this case, do I specify as the Method and Type,
both of which are currently mandatory?

By making Method and Type optional I can, at the very least,
assume that the recipient will determine the type of key
information from the URI.

Merlin
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2000 18:21:23 GMT

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