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

Re: Poll: Limiting KeyValue to a single Instance?

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:42:44 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, Brian LaMacchia <bal@microsoft.com>, "Carl Wallace" <cwallace@erols.com>
Carl indicated he'd like the KeyValue to refer to the validation key; Brian 
pointed out that this structure is already being used in other contexts were 
multiple instances are used.

Given this issue didn't command intense passions nor agreement I suppose we 
should stick with what we have: "a key that may be useful in validating the 
signature?" Kent, does this answer your question satisfactorily?

----- Original Message -----
>From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
>To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
>Cc: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
>Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:24 PM
>Subject: Poll: Limiting KeyValue to a single Instance?
> > In [1] Kent asked, "The current specification also permits multiple
> > elements in a KeyInfo element.  What does this mean?" Given we've been
> > trying to clarify other ambiguities, and with respect to the X509 SKI,
> > SubjectName, and IssuerSerial, should we also limit KeyValue to occurring
> > once and applying to the validation key, or should we keep the meaning
> > it's simply a "key that may be useful in validating the signature?"
> >
> > Please respond by end of Tuesday Feb 20th.
> > [1]

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, 20 February 2001 18:43:08 UTC

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