W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > August 2000

XML Encryption issues that I noted.

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:10:49 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000825180953.00af1ac0@localhost>
To: MBRICENO@XCERT.COM
Cc: "Public XML Encryption List" <xml-encryption@w3.org>
1. Can we write one schema that permits portions to be encrypted, or must we 
write as many schema as possible varied encrypted instances, or must the XML 
instance be well-formed only?
2. Signed and Encrypting: Sign then Encrypt. (Is the Encryption subject 
signed as well: Sign/Encrypt/Sign?)
3. Which way does the reference between the KeyInfo and the EncryptedContent 
point?
4. Philosophical/Design Issue: we should not have any expectation that we 
will be able to tell people how to write their schema with respect to 
Encryption.
5. Canonicalization?: How heavy need it be? Must we worry about namespace 
context? A binary canonical form has the potential of being efficient, need 
it be XML? Compression ...



_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 25 August 2000 18:10:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:17 GMT