- From: Magnus Nystrom <mnystrom@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:23:26 +0000
- To: "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Hi Scott, I don't know what version you're looking at, but there is an "anyURI" type on that "Algorithm" attribute in the schema associated with the 3/12/2012 draft. The "Parameter" element, as any element type without a Type specification, will get the "anyType" as you surmise (see e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#anyType). I don't see a reason to change this as it is the default. As for the wholesale copying, I agree. However, this was the decision of the group at the time; some people voiced concern over having a dependency on an external publication (see some of the thread here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0004.html) -- Magnus > -----Original Message----- > From: Cantor, Scott [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 8:19 AM > To: public-xmlsec@w3.org > Subject: Re: PBKDF2 schema in Enc 1.1 > > Actually on second read, the whole type is a bit underspecified, but I also see > that it's that way because it's also broken in the RSA schema. So I guess that's > a good reason not to reuse it, but it should be fixed. > > According to the reference source, the Algorithm there is definitely anyURI, > but I'm not sure what the Parameters element is meant to be. I think an > element defined with no type may be anyType, but I'd have to check. Either > way, it shouldn't be unstated. > > -- Scott > > On 7/2/12 11:16 AM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Was reviewing the PBKDF material for possible use in a spec I'm working > >on, and I think there's an error. The AlgorithmIdentifierType complex > >type has an attribute defined named Algorithm that I assume should be > >an anyURI type, but has no type defined. Whatever it's type, it should be > specified. > > > >Also, it seems ill-advised to me to copy-in-place wholesale the > >RSA-defined PBKDF schema instead of just reusing it directly, but maybe > >there's a reason. > >
Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 17:24:09 UTC