- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:22:46 +0000
- To: <mnystrom@microsoft.com>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
That is what I thought and why I suggested a set of URIs in my other email. Thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 13, 2011, at 1:18 AM, ext Magnus Nystrom wrote: > I am presently not aware of an existing MGF-SHA2 URI, Frederick. > > -- Magnus > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:51 AM >> To: Magnus Nystrom >> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; public-xmlsec@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Updated XML Encryption 1.1 >> >> thanks Magnus, response below. All, any problem with removing the text as >> Magnus proposes? >> >> regards, Frederick >> >> Frederick Hirsch >> Nokia >> >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:07 PM, ext Magnus Nystrom wrote: >> >>> Frederick, >>> - I don't follow this text: " (We rely upon the ANY schema construct because it >> is not possible to specify element content based on the value of an attribute.)" >>> It seems it requires the reader to know how we ended up here. I would suggest >> not including it at all. >> >> I agree, does anyone disagree with removing this language. >> >>> - I suggest the example for the new OAEP URL use SHA-2 instead of SHA-1 >> (both for digest and MGF) to illustrate our desire (and motivation) for making >> this addition. >>> >> >> Agree, but first I need to know that URI. See the other email I sent on this. >> Please let me know if there is a URI that is already defined, or whether my >> proposal is good. >> >> Thanks >> >>> -- Magnus >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: public-xmlsec-request@w3.org >>>> [mailto:public-xmlsec-request@w3.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:20 PM >>>> To: public-xmlsec@w3.org >>>> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com >>>> Subject: Updated XML Encryption 1.1 >>>> >>>> I have updated XML Encryption 1.1 editors draft, see >>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlenc-core-11/Overview.html >>>> >>>> The changes are as follows: >>>> >>>> 1. Implemented change proposed on list and agreed on today's call, >>>> with additional change to having MGF as element. >>>> >>>> (Proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- >>>> xmlsec/2011Oct/0024.html and minutes at >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Oct/att-0032/mi >>>> nutes- >>>> 2011-10-11.html#item03 ) >>>> >>>> 2. Updated xenc-schema11.xsd to add MGF element definition. Did *not* >>>> add comment to xenc-schema.xsd in EncryptionMethod element to note >>>> where this might go as it is described in the text. Thanks to Scott >>>> for reviewing and proposing schema improvements. >>>> >>>> 3. In addition to changes in proposal, in put in 5.5.2 schema snippet >>>> MGF defintion, also added second example (one for each URI case). >>>> Also changes in proposal to wording to accommodate MGF as an element. >>>> >>>> 4. Updated the broken RIPEMD-160 reference and fixed some validation >>>> errors in the source. >>>> >>>> Please review sections 3.2, 5.1 (Key Transport algorithm >>>> identifiers), 5.5 (removed last paragraph), 5.5.1 (added paragraph >>>> break), and 5.5.2 (significant revision of text for RSA-OAEP). >>>> >>>> Still need to define URL for SHA2 mask generation function >>>> (ACTION-845) and update algorithm cross reference (ACTION-846) >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> regards, Frederick >>>> >>>> Frederick Hirsch >>>> Nokia >>>> >>>> This should complete ACTION-844 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 13:23:37 UTC