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

Re: What to do with CryptoBinary?

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 18:12:09 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
At 17:54 3/26/2001 -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
>I don't claim to be an expert on the digital signatures specification,

Thanks for your response Noah. I should've provided a reference, but there 
is really nothing more to CryptoBinary than the schema definition.

>    <simpleType name="CryptoBinary">
>      <restriction base="binary">
>       <encoding value="base64"/>
>      </restriction>
>    </simpleType>

>my quick reading of it suggests that CryptoBinary is not just any base64

It is that simple. It's used as the type for SignatureValue, DigestValue, 
X509SKI, X509Certificate,  X509CRL, PGPKeyPacket, and all the DSA/RSA 
parameters. Consequently, it has to be generic, and given we decided to go 
base64 in xmldsig, it made sense to simplify things and just create a type 
for it.

>By specifically naming the
>digital signature type, you will allow behaviors to be applied to any
>information specifically coded in that manner.  The fact that the XML
>schema validation mechanisms provided no additional direct checking is
>unimportant, I think.

Even given what I said above, I'd be willing to take this as an argument not 
to eliminate it -- that's the direction I'm leaning towards anyways <smile/>.

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 Monday, 26 March 2001 18:12:24 UTC

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