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

RE: Comments on the 6 Apr Draft

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:37:28 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010517153641.024638b8@localhost>
To: <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Cc: "Blair Dillaway" <blaird@microsoft.com>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
(But, if people want to signed, encrypt/decrypt, even if serialization is up 
to the app, we'll have to recommend an approach that doesn't loose 
information necessary to signature validation.)

At 15:27 5/17/2001 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
>>I do believe we need to allow the app
>>to do the serialization so they can choose to do operations such as
>>C14N or serialize & compress.  A big issue is whether we define a
>>required serialization method in XML Encryption or always defer this
>>operation to the using application.
>
>If we are doing octet encrpytion, then I think my bias shifts back to 
>Infoset to use to describe these things. And how an application serializes 
>the infoset into octets (that our spec then defines how to encrypt) could 
>be up to it even.



__
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, 17 May 2001 15:37:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:19 GMT