- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:26:36 -0500
- To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
On Monday 12 November 2001 1:38, Takeshi Imamura wrote: > >- Why is it only applicable to EncryptedData? Why shouldn't I be able > >to have a signature that includes an EncryptedKey in its scope and > >still protect it? > > You can have such a signature, and this transform does not do anything > for EncryptedKey elements in its scope. I think Don was asking why do we do this? Do we want to include EncryptedKey as within the scope of processing? I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Don, do you have a specific scenario in mind? >Joseph, could you fix these? Yep. [new revision: 1.12] -- 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 Tuesday, 13 November 2001 17:26:45 UTC