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

Re: Encryption Subset Scenario

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:50:15 -0400
To: "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
Cc: "Hammond, Ben" <bhammond@rsasecurity.com>
Message-Id: <20020520185016.688208CE@policy.w3.org>
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 15:35, Dournaee, Blake wrote:
> Given an input Document D:
>
> <doc>
>   <elem1> foo1 </elem1>
>   <elem2> foo2 </elem2>
>   <elem3> foo3 </elem3>
> </doc>
> Am I missing something here? Is there an obvious solution to this? It
> seems like a simple case that might have been overlooked.

The correct approach is to have two EncryptedData's as you suggested. We 
did spend a lot of time on this question of what granularity we would 
encrypt at, and as Merlin and Ed suggested, absent a compelling scenario we 
converged on content and element content for fear of complexity. If you 
really have scenarios like this, it might seem a little verbose, but it 
preserves the XML semantics better than other solutions I can think of. (If 
you encrypt elem1 and elem2, that isn't going to be well formed either. ) 
Our #Element and #ElementContent are nicely grounded in the XML 1.0 spec, 
we know very well...

Regardless, I haven't represented this issue in the issues document as I'm 
taking it as historical/informational. Let me know if this is counter to 
your intent.

-- 

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, 20 May 2002 14:50:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:21 GMT