W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > February 2001

Open Issue #8

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:27:45 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010215171228.02b28008@rpcp.mit.edu>
To: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
Cc: "XML Encryption WG " <xml-encryption@w3.org>

>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2000Dec/att-0024/01-XMLEncryption_v01.html
>6. The XML schema presented in Section 7 still needs to be thoroughly 
>reviewed for conformance with [XML-schema].

I was thinking given some of the open issues associated with {EncryptedData, 
EncryptedKey} structures and {DataReference, KeyReference}, that they were 
very amendable to a generalization which would be very cool. So I started 
thinking of it in terms of UML and Schema classes: the Data and Key 
structures are essentially the same, where the Key Object has an extra 
property or two, or there's an added semantic. For instance KeyReference is 
a DataReference with an implicit type="&enc;#Key". EncryptedKey is an 
EncryptedData with implicit type="&enc;#Key", a ReferenceList (could also be 
use in EncryptedData for "detached" encryption), and a NameKey (I'm not sure 
what this is versus an ID associated with the Encrypted-Data/Key or 
Ciphertext element.)

Regardless, I hope to take a stab at generalization and had to validate the 
existing schema first, so I've attached a working version of the schema 
provided in [1].

__
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/

Received on Thursday, 15 February 2001 17:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:59 UTC