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

Re: further revised RetrievalMethod

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:30:07 -0400
Message-Id: <200009071730.NAA26993@torque.pothole.com>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I think Type should be mandatory.  People who have defined their own
KeyInfo data element can easily construct a type for it.


From:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id:  <200009071652.MAA27370@www19.w3.org>
Message-Id:  <>
Date:  Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:51:56 -0400
To:  Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc:  "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
In-Reply-To:  <200009071615.MAA08704@noah.dma.isg.mot.com>

>At 12:15 9/7/2000 -0400, Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>><code>DigestMethod</code> or <code>DigestValue</code> sub-element and
>>presence of the <code>URI</code> and <code>Type</code> attributes is
>We still have to deal with the mandatorines of that attribute. That means 
>people HAVE to come up with a type. Is this intended? We only specify a 
>subset of key types. Consequently people will come up with other types (that 
>is fine) or throw dummy text in there which seems like a bad thing if they 
>want to rely upon type information found elsewhere.
>Joseph Reagle Jr.
>W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
>IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 13:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:34 UTC