- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:59:03 -0400
- To: "Stern, David L" <david.l.stern@intel.com>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Donald Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
Hi David, Thanks again for your comments, I just wanted to close these other two comments before moving on (If I've misunderstood or this response does adequately address the issue, please let me know.) At 11:31 10/19/2000 -0700, Stern, David L wrote: >2. Should signatures with partial message recovery be noted somewhere? No particular requirement or consequent of partial message recovery has been raised that would affect the present syntax and processing. If you feel it does, do make a case for it. >3. Do we need a footnote for SHA-2? I'm not sure what you mean by footnote. However, we do specify URI or XML syntax for external algorithms and structures because: 1. we require at least one mandatory to implement method for interoperability 2. to provide an example/stub that others can employ. Consequently, there's many algorithms and structures (includin SHA-2) that can be used with XML Signature but our intent is not to become the gating specification for all of this; instead the other algorithms should be orthogonally deployed using the extensibility inherent to our design and content model. __ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 18:59:11 UTC