W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Decryption Transform processing question

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:46:14 +0100
To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020618124614.1B111444E5@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

r/IMAMU@jp.ibm.com/2002.06.18/17:17:40
>I like the XML-mode because it supports super-decryption and reduces the
>number of times of serialization/parsing, while I'm not sure of the
>binary-mode because it seems to be a little application-specific.  So I'm
>thinking that I will employ most of the XML-mode with a slight change in
>order to support binary decryption as supported by the current draft.

I disagree with this proposed change. As I tried to state
in my text, the XML mode is intended to support applications
where parts of an XML document MAY be encrypted after it
is signed. The binary mode is intended to support the signing
of binary data that MUST be encrypted. Bear in mind that the
target of a binary-mode transform cannot be in plaintext
form (i.e., unencrypted); we require that it be parsable XML.

It is incorrect (and I was thus wrong to originally request
it in this manner) to combine the two under the same algorithm
URI; they are fundamentally different operations.

Merlin
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 08:46:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:04 UTC