- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:33:03 -0500
- To: "'Thomas Roessler'" <tlr@w3.org>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Carine Bournez'" <carine@w3.org>
Thomas Roessler wrote on 2009-12-07: > Note that the schema type of CipherValue is base64binary, therefore it would > seem superfluous to normatively mention a separate base64 encoding step in > the processing model; in fact, having an explicit base64 encoding step could > be read to indicate *double* encoding. I don't think it's generally been the case that people read the schema type to determine how to encode their data, or that people have inferred double encoding in such cases, so I wouldn't go changing that piece. > We should again say, additionally, that the intended processing model is > to replace an EncryptedData element that holds "element" or "content" > cleartext with that cleartext; I wonder whether we need to say anything > special about EXI. If I understood your earlier comments, I think you're suggesting that it's mixing some fairly non-normative aspects of how to treat encryption/decryption in the context of an application scenario with the normative rules. There probably should be a separate section that talks about the application issues, among which might be the well known problem with encrypting non-well-formed XML so that it's no longer always parsable when you decrypt it. -- Scott
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 19:33:38 UTC