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

Re: Second last Call - Re: WD-xmldsig-core-20001012

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:59:03 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001023184857.0302fdb8@rpcp.mit.edu>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:11 GMT