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

Re: ds:CryptoBinary vs. base64Binary

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:53:47 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010417175157.032bad28@localhost>
To: "Brian LaMacchia" <bal@microsoft.com>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 16:12 4/14/2001 -0700, Brian LaMacchia wrote:
>After we decided to keep CryptoBinary around, Joseph asked me to take a
>look at all the elements that are currently specified as CryptoBinary
>and determine whether they really should be.  Currently, we've denoted
>each of the following elements as CryptoBinary:

Thank you Brian, I've hopefully captured these tweaks and added the 
following paragraph:

http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-CryptoBinary
This type is used by "bignum" values such as RSAKeyValue and DSAKeyValue. If 
a value can be of type base64Binary or ds:CryptoBinary they are defined as 
base64Binary. For example, if the signature algorithm is RSA or DSA then 
SignatureValue represents a bignum and could be ds:CryptoBinary. However, if 
HMAC-SHA1 is the signature algorithm then SignatureValue could have leading 
zero octets that must be preserved. Thus SignatureValue is generically 
defined as of type base64Binary.



__
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 17:54:09 GMT

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