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

AW: AW: KeyInfo Extensibility poll

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:52:12 +0100
To: "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: "Carl Wallace" <cwallace@erols.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBIMACDKCOPBLEJCCDGELIDAAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Hi Merlin,

> >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
> >syntax.
> 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.

I discussed this issue further (off-list) with Carl, and I have to
admit, the longer we talk about it, the less I am convinced of
the benefits of (2). My consideration was the same one as those in
your second paragraph above.

Regards, Gregor
DI Gregor Karlinger
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 02:48:28 UTC

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