- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:02:40 -0400
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 21:52 99/10/28 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: >There is no place for DigestMethod parameters in the above structure >and two telecons ago people on the call liked having the parallelism of >having SignatureMethod/SignatureValue and DigestMethod/DigestValue. I'm beginning to doubt the usefullness of queing 2/3 weeks of discussion/changes in our collective mind's without explicitly representing in some way where we think we stand. Instead of updating our spec in this time, it'd be at least to have that normative example and update that accordingly till we rev the spec. I assume you are referring to the discussion of [1], could you point me to or state an example of the resulting syntax? [1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Minutes/991021a-tele.html _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 29 October 1999 11:02:45 UTC