RE: Signature 1.1: CharTwoFieldParamsType (Re: ACTION-492: Compare XML Schema fragments and file)

There's a mistake in the schema; it should only have the "M" element (this is the field size).

-- Magnus


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xmlsec-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xmlsec-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:03 PM
> To: Magnus Nystrom; Brian LaMacchia
> Cc: Thomas Roessler; XML Security Working Group WG
> Subject: Signature 1.1: CharTwoFieldParamsType (Re: ACTION-492: Compare
> XML Schema fragments and file)
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 27 January 2010 05:22:53 UTC