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

RE: C14N Argument

From: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:06:57 -0700
Message-ID: <7874BFCCD289A645B5CE3935769F0B520C342E@tigger.PureEdge.com>
To: "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

Hi Blake,

It could be useful, now or in the future, to put another transform after

John Boyer
Senior Product Architect, Software Development
Internet Commerce System (ICS) Team
PureEdge Solutions Inc. 
Trusted Digital Relationships
v: 250-708-8047  f: 250-708-8010
1-888-517-2675   http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/>  	

-----Original Message-----
From: Dournaee, Blake [mailto:bdournaee@rsasecurity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:47 PM
To: 'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'
Cc: 'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'
Subject: C14N Argument

Hello All,

There is something that I have been pondering about XML Signatures.
Specifically, the current Candidate Rec allows for the use of Canonical
as a transform in the "transformation pipeline" above and beyond the use
C14N to convert any node-set to octets. 

Consider this Argument:

1. If a Reference is to be processed as "XML" (node-set), it will be
canonicalized implicitly when the node-set is converted to octets at the
of the transformation pipeline. 

2. If a Reference is to be processed as octets, canonicalization is
meaningless, since we don't know what the file format is anyhow

3. C14N, when used as a part of the transformation pipeline is

Is there some exception to my argument here? What is missing?

Kind Regards,

Blake Dournaee
Toolkit Applications Engineer
RSA Security
"The only thing I know is that I know nothing" - Socrates
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 18:07:48 UTC

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