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

RE: Anonymous types in the DSig Schema

From: Tom Gindin <tgindin@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:47:52 -0500
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "Karl Scheibelhofer" <Karl.Scheibelhofer@iaik.at>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0E27CC4B.FA9ECCEA-ON852569B3.0067135C@somers.hqregion.ibm.com>

     Time stamps are certainly likely to be in one SignatureProperty with
policies or condition assertions in another, and they will not normally
come from the same namespace.

          Tom Gindin

"Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>@w3.org on 12/12/2000 01:14:06 PM

Sent by:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org

To:   "Karl Scheibelhofer" <Karl.Scheibelhofer@iaik.at>
cc:   "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, "XMLSigWG"
Subject:  RE: Anonymous types in the DSig Schema

At 10:04 12/11/2000 +0100, Karl Scheibelhofer wrote:
> > 2. 'FIXME, as is, minOccurs/maxOccurs of "choice" or "any" can be
> > omitted'.
> > Are you saying it's redundant? I'm not sure: what I think we were
> > saying is
> > you can have 0 or more elements (any 0:unbounded) from 0 or more
> > namespaces
> > (choice 0:unbounded). I agree with you if we want to say every
> > SignatureProperty content should only have elements from a single
> > namespace
> > -- which makes sense since people can use multiple SignatureProperties.
>yes, you are right. i simply missed the namespace issue.

Actually, my point here is that others might have though that (for
a signature semantic and a time stamp (both from different namespaces)
actually did sit in their own SignatureProperty. How do others feel?

Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 13:48:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:35 UTC