W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > May 2010

RE: EXProc proposal: pxp:hmac-sha1 (and pxp:hmac-md5)

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 03:53:06 -0400
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41C016F69B6@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>
To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Fuller [mailto:james.fuller.2007@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:44 AM
> To: Toman, Vojtech
> Cc: xproc-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Re: EXProc proposal: pxp:hmac-sha1 (and pxp:hmac-md5)

> I would stump up for just defining exproc:hmac-sha1 on the algorithm
> option on existing p:hash instread of a new step? Afterall it is
> defined as a Qname ... which does make me think of what namespace the
> existing options are in ;)

I was thinking about this, too, but my feeling is that would be twisting
of p:hash. In my opinion, p:hash is an implementation of a hash
function, whereas things like HMAC-SHA1 apply a hash function

But I am no expert in cryptography, so maybe what you are proposing is
the right thing to do. It would also be the simplest solution. We would
would only need to say that the message to sign will be read from the
"parameters" port of the p:hash step (or something like that).

Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 07:54:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:06 UTC