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

Re: X509Data with improved example

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 19:44:37 -0400
Message-Id: <200009072344.TAA09953@torque.pothole.com>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
cc: lde008@dma.isg.mot.com, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Well, I think it would be OK to replace the bulk of the Base64
in each of the three certs with an ellipsis ("...").


From:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id:  <200009072251.SAA14579@www19.w3.org>
Message-Id:  <>
Date:  Thu, 07 Sep 2000 18:51:16 -0400
To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
Cc:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
In-Reply-To:  <200009072151.RAA15483@noah.dma.isg.mot.com>

>At 17:51 9/7/2000 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>>I haven't wrapped the text because I wasn't sure what the best width
>>was but white space is ignored in Base64 so spaces and new lines can
>>be inserted withough effecting the encoded certifciates.
>Editorial question: were these requested? The big globs of data representing 
>the cert chain, intermediate cert, and root cert are rather ugly and verbose 
>for something that is optional regardless.
>In our efforts to keep this document from bloating all out of proportion, we 
>don't even include an instance of a valid SignatureValue in-line (they are 
>external and referenced), consequently in light of ~terseness I'm not keen 
>on having these in-line. If people think it is fundamentally necessary to 
>the understanding of this portion of the spec, we could link to them...?
>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 19:41:32 UTC

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