W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: additional XMLDSIG URIs

From: Brian LaMacchia <bal@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:11:39 -0700
Message-ID: <BCDB2C3F59F5744EBE37C715D66E779CEAB65F@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: <lde008@dms.isg.mot.com>
Two questions:

1) Why did you choose to use URLs that were not of the form
"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#<something>", where the something is
sha256, sha284, etc.  Ideally these should probably be NIST-defined
identifiers, and failing that I would have expected them to follow the
XMLDSIG naming scheme.  

2) Why did you add the truncation options to SHA-384 and SHA-512?  I
can't really see a point in this; if you want a shorter hash output then
just use a shorter hash function.  DO you have a particular scenario in
mind that would likely want to use a subset of a SHA-384 or SHA-512


-----Original Message-----
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3@torque.pothole.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:59 PM
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Cc: lde008@dms.isg.mot.com
Subject: additional XMLDSIG URIs

My first partial draft of additional XMLDSIG URIs is at


 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                      dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street                                +1 508-634-2066(h)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                            +1 508-261-5434(w)
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 17:43:35 UTC

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