All, In response to ACTION-287, I have attempted to compare the normative statements on algorithms in XMLEnc 1.1 with those in XMLDsig 1.1. Besides the natural differences (XMLDsig not listing encryption algorithms and v.v.), there are a few areas where it does seem justified to align the two specs: - XMLEnc has RIPEMD-160 listed as optional; XMLDsig does not mention this digest algorithm. - XMLEnc just refers to XMLDsig for message authentication algorithms - we did discuss this during the F2F and having now looked at this more closely, my recommendation is to remove Section 5.8 (and the corresponding entry in 5.1) in XMLEnc 1.1 since, AFAICS, message auth is not mentioned or required elsewhere in XMLEnc. - All canonicalization is optional in XMLEnc (maybe this is OK?). - XMLEnc does not mention transform algorithms (but should probably given the CipherReference type, see XMLEnc Section 3.3.1). If the group agrees that it should, I guess the same normative statements as are in XMLDsig 1.1 with regards to transforms should apply? -- MagnusReceived on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 09:33:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:18 UTC