AW: revised XML signature syntax from Oslo

[This email was bounced to me because the address above is not the one on
the accept/dist list, however I've added the address above to the complement
accept list. -- Reagle]

___

>         <KeyingInfo/>
>         <sig-alg/>

I was wondering if it did not make sense to combine those two parts into
something like

>         <sig-alg AlgorithmName>
>            <Alg-Info/>
>            <KeyingInfo/>
>         <sig-alg/>
Reason: Keyinginfo will most likely be highly dependent on Alg-Info.
Especially when considering symmetric variants, I'd highly appreciate the
possibility to not keep their specifications together with the asymmetric
ones and grouping them would a) enable us to sepearte algorithm-specific
specifications into separate documents if we decide to do so and b) allow
for modular, plugable provider-like implementations using kind of a
standard-API a'la the JCE provider stuff. Obviously we could do so without
modification, but I'd like that better. Comments?

> Manifest is an opaque Blob
Yes, I agree, but I also would like to have some kind of document discussing
reasonable behaviour when constructing/validating/manipulating manifests
etc. Outside the core spec obviously.

Peter
---------------------------------
Dr. Peter Lipp
IAIK, TU Graz
Email Peter.Lipp@iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5513
Fax   +43 316 873 5510
Web   http://jcewww.iaik.tu-graz.ac.at