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

Re: initial Exclusive Canonicalization draft

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:42:31 +0100
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20010715224231.EFA0C43BCB@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>
>At 07:58 7/12/2001, merlin wrote:
>>The encoding (and, incidentally, your algorithm URI) belongs in &more;
>If I understand you, I don't agree with this. This specification should 
>define its own identifier. Why would it exist in &more;?

I just look at &exc; as the specification for an algorithm and &more;
as a specification for how certain algorithms are identified and encoded
for use in &dsig;. In much the same way, &c14n; specifies an algorithm
and &dsig; specifies (among other things) algorithm identifiers and
parameter encoding. The &exc; document is not tied to &dsig; and really
doesn't need to know how it will be encoded.

If this is not how things are, then I'm wrong. merlin

Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2001 18:43:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:36 UTC