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

Re: Decryption Transform comments

From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:11:33 +0900
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: <hirsch@zolera.com>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>, "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OFBD72ABB6.66D4C691-ON49256B09.0012A68C@LocalDomain>


Joseph,

>Prefix and namespace name of each namespace that is in scope for e, the
>first element node in X. [is this e different than that in
>decryptIncludedNodes? -JR]

It may or may not be different and depends on what node-set is given as
input.  For example, given the node-set created from the following
document:

<foo>
  <bar>...</bar>
  <EncryptedData xmlns="...">...</EncryptedData>
  <goo>...</goo>
</foo>

The e in parsing context definition is the foo element node, while the e in
decryptIncludedNodes() is the EncryptedData element node.  On the other
hand, given the node-set created from the following document:

<EncryptedData xmlns="...">...</EncryptedData>

The e's are the same, each of which is the EncryptedData element node.


>Name and value of each entity [is this the formal definion of entity from
>xml1.0 or something else -JR] that is effective for the XML document
>causing X.

I'm not sure whether this is the formal definition, but what I intend is a
set of entity name and value bindings declared in a document type
declaration.


>The MANDATORY URI attribute value of the dcrpt:Except element MUST be a
>non-empty same-document URI reference [ URI] (i.e., a number sign ('#')
>character followed by a fragment identifier) or XPointer expression and
>identify an enc:EncryptedData or enc:EncryptedKey element.

If we allow an XPointer expression, we have to define how the expression is
evaluated.  We can refer to the text described in 4.3.3.3 Same-Document
URI-References of the XML Signature spec for definition, but do you think
the text is enough?  Also do you think we have to support all XPointer
expressions, though XML Signature does not?

You added to the above text the EncryptedKey element being identified.
Because this transform does nothing for the element, I believe it does not
make sense.

Thanks,
Takeshi IMAMURA
Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research
imamu@jp.ibm.com



From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> on 2001/11/16 07:17

Please respond to reagle@w3.org

To:   Takeshi Imamura/Japan/IBM@IBMJP
cc:   <hirsch@zolera.com>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>, Hiroshi
      Maruyama/Japan/IBM@IBMJP
Subject:  Re: Decryption Transform comments



[ Result:
  http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-decrypt
  $Revision: 1.13 $ on $Date: 2001/11/15 22:14:59 $ GMT by $Author: reagle
$
]

I think we're good for publication except for the two small questions
(about "e" and "entity") I have about the parsing context.

o Prefix and namespace name of each namespace that is in scope for e, the
first element node in X. [is this e different than that in
decryptIncludedNodes? -JR]
o Name and value of each entity [is this the formal definion of entity from
xml1.0 or something else -JR] that is effective for the XML document
causing X.


On Friday 02 November 2001 12:18, Takeshi Imamura wrote:
> You missed Frederick's tweak about XPointer.

Fixed.

> Also I think that the third item in Section 2.1.2 is not a restriction
> but just a note for the function decrypt().  So it should be moved to the
> definition of the function.

Ok.

> OK, I try revising the description of the function "noDecryptNodes" as
> follows:

Ok.

--

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 Monday, 19 November 2001 03:11:59 GMT

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