- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:56:09 -0500
- To: ext MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Makoto > Is "the ECPublicKey element" in Encryption 1.1 and Signature 1.1 > actually the ECKeyValue element? Yes you are correct and Magnus has confirmed this. I have updated the drafts for XML Signature 1.1 and XML Encryption 1.1 to refer to ECKeyValue instead of ECPublicKey. This should close ISSUE-194 (also duplicate ISSUE-193) regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 8, 2010, at 1:42 AM, ext MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote: > Is http://www.w3.org/2009/xmldsig11#ECKeyValue a key agreement > algorithm? Probably, not. But I don't think that 5.6.4 is clear > enough. What's the point of showing "identifiers" in non-algorithm > elements? After all, XML uses qnames rather than identifiers > containing > fragment identifiers. Why does the XML Signature WG invent such > identifiers? > > Is "the ECPublicKey element" in Encryption 1.1 and Signature 1.1 > actually the ECKeyValue element? > > Cheers, > Makoto >
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 12:56:48 UTC