- From: <dee3@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:59:56 -0400
- To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
It's the hash of the URI, not the hash of what the URI points to. Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd 17 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA dee3@us.ibm.com tel: 1-914-784-7913, fax: 1-914-784-3833 home: 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1, Carmel, NY 10512 USA dee3@torque.pothole.com tel: 1-914-276-2668 "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> on 06/07/99 03:18:55 PM To: "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com> cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org (bcc: Donald Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM) Subject: Re: Namespace treatment for C14N At 09:19 AM 6/7/99 +0900, Hiroshi Maruyama wrote: >1. Namespace prefixes are always expanded to its original URI (including >the default namespace) >2. Hex coding of MD5 of the Expanded URI is used as the new prefix. Ok. It's nice in that the schema definition language (SDL/DTD) is implicitly included in the hash. However, this feature is now required on every single signature. One could argue that there may be some applications that don't care about the SDL that much (not worth the cost, or off-line), and if they did, they should include it in the manifest. >This is not particularly readable but satisfies the following two >requirements. > 1. B is wellformed (well-formedness) > 2. C14N(B)=B (fixed point property) I don't believe it meets #2 does it? If the URI transformation is part of the C14N, then on re-processing the C14Nizer will not be able to find the resource and produce the same hash. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-DSig Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 1999 10:24:20 UTC