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

AW: KeyInfo Extensibility poll

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:07:16 +0100
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBIMACDKCOPBLEJCCDGEKEDAAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Donald,

[...]

> (2) In this case, one would logically recommend adding subelements to
> SPKIData, X509Data, or PGPData where you are complementing it but if
> you are replacing it with a sufficiently new SPKI, X509, or PGP key
> info element, then you should define a new element under KeyInfo as
> you would if you were defining a entirely new type of child element
> under KeyInfo.

I think that (2) should be the way if SPKIData/X509Data/PGPData is to
be complemented by some additional information. This would allow that
implementations not aware of the complementing subelements can still 
evaluate the SPKIData/X509Data/PGPData.

If the changes to such types are so substantially, that they do not
share a minimal structure with the ur types, then I think completely
new elements under KeyInfo should be defined.

I do not see a good reason for allowing (3). If you want to introduce
typing, use the means XML Schema provides, i.e. do it as proposed in (1).

Regards, Gregor
---------------------------------------------------------------
DI Gregor Karlinger
mailto:gregor.karlinger@iaik.at
http://www.iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 03:03:37 GMT

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