Re: XMLDSIG Interop in connection with 48th IETF

Making some of this stuff optional seems reasonable but I would think
that a lot of implementations would just pass off the uri to some
retrieval mechanism without looking inside it and still want a
separate indication of type and encoding.


From:  merlin <>
Message-Id:  <>
To:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <>
Cc:  "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <>
In-reply-to:  <> 
Date:  Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:20:57 +0100

>>At 19:30 7/18/00 +0100, Merlin Hughes wrote:
>> >The Schema has mandatory content for the Type element. This
>> >seems wrong because it can't then be implemented interoperably
>> >without further specification.
>>Are you suggestion it be change to optional?
>>   <element name='Type'>
>>     <complexType content='mixed'>
>>       <any namespace='##other' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
>>        ...
>Something of that nature. RetrievalMethod simply seems
>underspecified given that it "SHOULD" be implemented.
>By making some of those parts optional, it could be
>read as minimally and sufficiently specified.
>For example, it seems reasonable to present a RetrievalMethod
>with the Location:
>  ldap://;binary
>What, in this case, do I specify as the Method and Type,
>both of which are currently mandatory?
>By making Method and Type optional I can, at the very least,
>assume that the recipient will determine the type of key
>information from the URI.

Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 13:38:20 UTC