- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:02:57 +0100
- To: Magnus Nystrom <mnystrom@microsoft.com>, Brian LaMacchia <bal@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, XML Security Working Group WG <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Going through Signature 1.1 in order to iron out minor editorial kinks, I realize that this not-so-minor issue apparently didn't get resolved, yet: > - The standalone schema has CharTwoFieldParamsType defined with two elements "M" and "W"; the snippet in the spec has "M" only. Which one's right? Somebody with actual knowledge of EC crypto, please advise. Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 12 Jan 2010, at 18:34, Thomas Roessler wrote: > A quick review leads to the following: > > - The order of choices in FieldIDType is different. Doesn't matter. > - The standalone schema has CharTwoFieldParamsType defined with two elements "M" and "W"; the snippet in the spec has "M" only. Which one's right? > - The schema snippet for DEREncodedKeyValue misses the XML comment identifying the target name space that we've used for other schema snippets. > > Regards, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 23:03:04 UTC