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

RE: Base64

From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:43:41 +0200
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LBEPJAONIMDADHFHAEAOEEPJCHAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Joseph,

> Is [1] sufficient for your concerns about base64?
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0103.html

The relevant point is:

     4. what is the canonical form for base64Binary values?

     Respose: Option A: 76 characters from the base64 alphabet, then a
newline
     sequence; repeat as needed; last line of more than 0, less than 76
     characters, also terminated by newline sequence.

But I am not sure about the consequences of introducing a canonical form for
base64Binary values: Is a schema validating parser enforced to report only
the
canonical form of the value to the application?

  * If yes, then my concerns are addressed, if the signature application is
    ENFORCED to produce the canonical form of the digest value's base64
    lexical representation.

  * In the current draft of XMLDSIG, this enforcement is not established.
    Without such an enforement, the signature will break if the creator
    of a signature does not produce the canonical representation, and if
    the validator of the signature uses a validating parser.

  * If no, my concerns are not addressed.

Liebe Gruesse/Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
DI Gregor Karlinger
mailto:gregor.karlinger@iaik.at
http://www.iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 03:43:21 UTC

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