- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:09:31 -0400
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@uwi.com>
- Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "DSig Group" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 09:46 99/10/29 -0700, John Boyer wrote: >What you're proposing for function parameters is analogous to wrapping all >of the subelements in the item above in 'field' elements, as follows: I think one of the things being confused here is the necessity of parameters for Transforms [1], for .*Method Algorithms, and as to whether they must be the same thing. But I'm going to assume they are not at the start of this email and try to focus on what we are trying to say with respect to Digests. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/1999OctDec/0203.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/1999OctDec/0214.html >Don: ><item> > <field type="name">Television, 19 inch, Color</field> > <field type="serialno">123456</field> > <field type="unitcost">100</field> > <field type="price">300</field> > ... ></item> Yes, I definitely wouldn't like the above. I'd rather someone stick in their own XML (which I'm advocating here where I can.) >Joseph (sans xmlns): ><item> > <field> > <name>Television, 19 inch, Color</name> > </field> > ... ></item> Actually, I haven't tried to argue we need parameter in this thread, I just want to avoid unqualified type/values. Otherwise, I've been trying to _understand_ the parameter issue. Forget the syntax for a moment, again what is it that we are saying? The (object) pointed to by ObjectReference has a location of "http://ietf.org" The (object) pointed to by ObjectReference has a Digest (object) Digest (object) has an Method (object) Method (object) has a literal value of "urn:nist-gov:sha1" Method (object) has a Parameter (object) with an open content model. Digest (object) has a Value (object) Value (object) has an encoding of "Base64" Value (object) has a literal value of "a23bcd43" I am not fairly confident this is what we are trying to say (see [1] for the DLG). This could be represented as follows <ObjectReference Location="http://www.ietf.org"> <Digest> <Algorithm="urn:nist-gov:sha1"> <Parameter Type="urn:ietf:length">32</Parameter> </Algorithm> <Value Encoding="urn:ietf-org:base64">a23bcd43</DigestValue> </Digest> </ObjectReference> or to collapse it a bit more. <ObjectReference Location="http://www.ietf.org"> <Digest Algorithm="urn:nist-gov:sha1"> <Parameter Type="urn:ietf:length">32</Parameter> <Value Encoding="urn:ietf-org:base64">a23bcd43</DigestValue> </Digest> </ObjectReference> It is interesting to note that this is completely consistent with that offered in [1] for transforms except it has an additional Value element which don't need to be represented in transforms -- it is implicit -- though some could conceivable want to represent the intermediate results of transforms! John, what I believe you are disputing in either instance is the use of the Parameter element (not the structure itself) because the above could be skipped, or done use XML elements, I agree! <ObjectReference Location="http://www.ietf.org"> <Digest Method="urn:nist-gov:sha1"> <length xmlsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/sig/length">32</length> </Digest> <Value Encoding="urn:ietf-org:base64">a23bcd43</DigestValue> </ObjectReference> [1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-datamodel-19991029.gif _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 29 October 1999 16:09:49 UTC