- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:57:01 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@Sun.COM>
- cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> It's fine by me if there isn't a c14n algorithm in use. My point is
> that posts to this list have been all over the map w.r.t. both what is
> required for canonicalization and who is going to work out what is
> required.
Right. This has been my fundamental problem with the Infoset-based
approach. At some point, DSIG and cryptography need bytes, not abstract
data.
> Given that, I'm asking whether it's better to consider that the
> abstract process is about binary data, not about base64-encoded data,
> since everybody is talking about binary data. That leaves the "base64
> encoded content" as how you talk about the "real" abstract process in
> SOAP terms. That seems more real to me than talking in abstract terms
> about "efficient implementations" and "PASWA enabled" features when
> it's the "efficient implementations" that people will be zeroing in
> on.
Ah, I see the point.
I agre with you. :)
/r$
--
Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 20:57:02 UTC