- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:00:12 -0400
- To: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
- cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
I believe there is a desire from eCheck and presumably similar protocols to be able to sign things relative to where the signature element is. This relates to composite documents formed from pre-existing XMLD documents where you can't depend on using IDs because they might conflict in the documents combined to make the composite result. Donald From: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:01:23 +0900 Message-Id: <200008170801.RAA16848@ns.trl.ibm.com> References: <27FF4FAEA8CDD211B97E00902745CBE201AB44FB@seine.valicert.com> To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org In-reply-to: Kevin Regan's message of "Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:51:06 -0700" <27FF 4FAEA8CDD211B97E00902745CBE201AB44FB@seine.valicert.com> User-Agent: SEMI/1.13.5 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Meih=F2?=) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.4 (i386-*-nt4.0.1381) MULE/4.1 (AOI) Meadow/1.10 (TSUYU) >Do we need both of here() and the enveloped-signature transform? > >-- >TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM >
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2000 07:57:36 UTC