- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:31:52 -0500
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@uwi.com>
- Cc: "DSig Group" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 09:45 00/01/10 -0800, John Boyer wrote: >These comments are based on the text in [1]. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmldsig-core-20000104/ > >The definition for Enveloping Signature seems too constraining. Current >definition: ... >SIGNATURE, ENVELOPING: The signature is over content found within the >signature itself in an Object element. The Object is typically identified by >IDREF (though a transform could be used), and the enveloping Signature >element is typically used to provide the root document element. I agree with your point here. >The definition of detached signature also seems too constraining. Current >definition: > >The signature is over external content identified via a URI. Cosequently, >the signature is "detached" from the content it signs. Ok, when I wrote these I was thinking if you used a URI to some other resource, it was obviously a detached signature, if it was in the same document it was either enveloped or enveloping: <enveloped> <signature/> </envoloped> <signature> <object> <enveloping/> </object> </signature> You are speaking of the case of <some element> <signature/> <signedobject/> </some element> Even though they are in the same document, I think I agree that the best match (instead of creating a new name for it) would be to call it a detached signature -- even though they appear in the same document. >SIGNATURE, DETACHED: The signature is over content external to the Signature >element, which can be identified via a URI, IDREF, or transform. >Consequently, the signature is "detached" from the content it signs. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 10 January 2000 16:31:57 UTC