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

Re: RetrievalMethod

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:30:24 -0400
Message-Id: <200008211930.PAA21911@torque.pothole.com>
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
OK, I believe we have a consensus on the syntax I posted.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Message-Id:  <200008182051.VAA23000@cougar.baltimore.ie>
To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
In-reply-to:  <200008181943.PAA18232@torque.pothole.com> 
Date:  Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:51:52 +0100

>r/dee3@torque.pothole.com/2000.08.18/15:43:37
>
>>If the inability to do an HTTP POST is a problem here, which I'm not
>>sure it is in a practical sense, then wouldn't we need to generalize
>>Reference also?  And no internal structure menas giving up on
>>interoperability.
>
>I think that the proposed solution is probably optimal; transform
>is known and supported and it covers most needs, subject to a
>definition of some standard types. The only motivation for an
>extended URI element (e.g., POST) is that, for example, LDAP URIs
>can be quite expansive. However, that can be solved in a particular
>implementation by a new KeyInfo element in just as interoperable
>a manner as an extended URI.
>
>So, I disagree with you not at all.
>
>Merlin
>
Received on Monday, 21 August 2000 15:27:33 GMT

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