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

Re: New proposed fix for here()

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:00:12 -0400
Message-Id: <200008171200.IAA15632@torque.pothole.com>
To: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org

I believe there is a desire from eCheck and presumably similar
protocols to be able to sign things relative to where the signature
element is.  This relates to composite documents formed from
pre-existing XMLD documents where you can't depend on using IDs
because they might conflict in the documents combined to make the
composite result.

Donald

From:  TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Date:  Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:01:23 +0900
Message-Id:  <200008170801.RAA16848@ns.trl.ibm.com>
References:  <27FF4FAEA8CDD211B97E00902745CBE201AB44FB@seine.valicert.com>
To:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
In-reply-to:  Kevin Regan's message of "Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:51:06 -0700"	<27FF
4FAEA8CDD211B97E00902745CBE201AB44FB@seine.valicert.com>
User-Agent:  SEMI/1.13.5 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Meih=F2?=) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui)
	     Emacs/20.4 (i386-*-nt4.0.1381) MULE/4.1 (AOI) Meadow/1.10 (TSUYU)

>Do we need both of here() and the enveloped-signature transform?
>
>-- 
>TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM
>
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2000 07:57:36 GMT

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