W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Next steps for xmldsig

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 04:15:48 +0100
To: aleksey@aleksey.com
Cc: reagle@w3.org, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020411031548.5566C43BEA@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

Hi Aleksey,

We could go with a solution supporting both modes of operation; I'd
suggest, in that case, Filter=interect and Filter=intersect-subtrees.
However, before we go there, I would like to know what is the real-
world use case that you are trying to solve.

You seem to be suggesting that selecting just an element in isolation
is a valid use case. Consider:

  <cc:CreditCard xmlns:cc='http://example.org/cc' Type='amex'>

I can see that it might be useful to sign this credit card, less the
AuthCodeToBeFilledIn element. I cannot see the use case for signing
something like <cc:CreditCard />, which is the case that you have
repeatedly brought up.

I don't have much freedom to play with this (hence the current time),
so you will have to forgive my arbitrary statistics, but I quickly
ran a benchmark of using an intersect followed by a subtract filter
to select an element, less certain children (e.g., the above), versus
a pure XPath node-set intersect filter where I used a single XPath
expression to achieve this same effect (using a predicate). The pair of
subtree filters was, again, significantly (2x) faster than the node-set
XPath option. Now, it would seem to me that the only real advantage
of a node-set XPath option would be to perform this type of operation.
Indeed, the very act of making it available would suggest that this is
one of its purposes; but it is not the ideal choice for doing this. If,
alternatively, the purpose of the node-set XPath is that people will be
'familiar' with it, then their familiarity will breed poorly-performing

So, as far as I can see (and it seems that this is confirmed by your
tests), our subtree formulation speeds up all the meaningful use cases;
and I'd imagine that you didn't even optimize your code for common subtree
operations. If you can present real use cases where subtrees don't do
the job, then I'll gladly advocate a more flexible/complex approach;
I simply have yet to encounter the problem that you are solving.


>There were no replies to my  suggestion [1] about an option to process
>nodes instead of subtrees in XPath Filter 2.0 Transform so I am rasing this
>question again. I understand the performance concerns (and I do see small
>performance decrease in my tests).However,  I believe this will add 
>and provide better way to select "complicated" parts of XML document.
>Aleksey Sanin.
>Joseph Reagle wrote:
>>3. XPath Filter 2.0 Transform
>>Thanks to this week's edits by Merlin (and discussion between Merlin, John, 
>>Aleksey, and Christian) I think we've converged on a design and text that 
>>we're happy with. If no one objects to the present text [2] (speak now!) 
>>I'll stage it for publication as a W3C Last Call Working Draft (and first 
>>"official" W3C WD) at the end of this month.

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee(s) only.  If you have received this message in error or
there are any problems please notify the originator immediately.  The 
unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is 
strictly forbidden. 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.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for Content
Security threats, including computer viruses.
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 23:16:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:37 UTC