- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:43:33 +0000
- To: <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Makoto We have corrected gh-example.xml (found in the generic-hybrid-ciphers Drafts directory, not sure which path you followed to reach it). http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Aug/0096.html The correction to the example file did not require any schema file changes. thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:39 PM, ext MURATA Makoto wrote: > I have to revisit this issue, since a test document gh-example.xml (in > the directory "xml encryption test files") > has > > <ds:KeyInfo> > <dsig11:ECKeyValue> > <dsig11:NamedCurve URI="urn:oid:1.2.840.10045.3.1.7"/> > <dsig11:PublicKey>DEADBEEF</dsig11:PublicKey> > </dsig11:ECKeyValue> > </ds:KeyInfo> > > To validate this ECKeyValue element, we need the schema for Signature 1.1. > > But this example document might be simply incorrect. I see other errors > such as > > Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2009/xmlenc11#GenericHybridCipher" > > which is not a valid algorithm identifer. Is my copy obsolete? > > Regards, > Makoto > > 2011/8/19 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>: >> Agreed. Thanks. >> >> Regards, >> Makoto >> >> 2011/8/17 <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>: >>> >>> Dear MURATA Makoto , >>> >>> The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on >>> the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Encryption Syntax and Processing >>> Version 1.1 published on 13 May 2010. Thank you for having taken the time >>> to review the document and to send us comments! >>> >>> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below. >>> >>> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at >>> public-xmlsec@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 22 August 2011. In >>> case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for >>> or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot >>> be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection >>> which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this >>> document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> For the XML Security Working Group, >>> Thomas Roessler >>> W3C Staff Contact >>> >>> 1. >>> http://www.w3.org/mid/CALvn5EAQnAT-i4xB0HV+29ta0fp=ijcg77BfofM3o1x44U0jQg@mail.gmail.com >>> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmlenc-core1-20100513/ >>> >>> >>> ===== >>> >>> Your comment on 9.1 XSD Schema XML Encryption Core Schema Instance >>> xenc-sc...: >>>> xenc-schema-11.xsd does not import xmldsig11-schema.xsd but >>>> rather import xmldsigschema.xsd. However, XML Encryption 1.1 >>>> normatively references to XML Signature 1.1 rather than 1.0. >>>> Which is correct? >>> >>> >>> Working Group Resolution (LC-2544): >>> The working group decided to not make any change here as >>> xenc-schema-11.xsd does not require any definitions from >>> xmldsig-11-schema.xsd. All that is required is ds:DigestMethod from >>> xmldsigschmema.xsd; so the current inclusion is correct and does not >>> include unnecessary material. >>> >>> Thus the schema import is correct as is the normative reference to XML >>> SIgnature 1.1 (e.g. to pick up normative changes that are not necessarily >>> reflected by schema changes) >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake >> >> Makoto >> > > > > -- > > Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake > > Makoto >
Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 18:44:21 UTC