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

Re: AW: KeyInfo Extensibility poll

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:57:32 +0000
To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Cc: "Carl Wallace" <cwallace@erols.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010124175732.47C6C44987@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

Hi Gregor,

>You are right, this is the cleaner solution, since there are less options
>to do similar things. But (2) allows it to augment types, and this types
>can still be used by applications only aware of the basic XML-Signature

If the data is critical to understanding an X509Data, then we
agree that a new type MyX509Data must be defined. If it is not
critical to understanding the X509Data, then why not place it
in an X509DataExt element within the KeyInfo?

I just don't see the tangible benefit of dirtying (you seem to
agree that 2 is less clean) our primitive types.


Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 12:58:03 UTC

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