- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:27:43 -0400
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 10:59 4/10/2001 +0100, merlin wrote: >Following up to, and changing, my opinion: Merlin, I' agree, and I've done this a few times myself (starting tweaking the document on this note to improve it, then confusing myself!). But I think your suggestion of needing different URIs for the algorithm versus their structure is an improvement. >Technically, the DSA and RSA types are |KeyValue| types, >not |KeyInfo| types. I would suggest that we move all >the text for RSA and DSA down to just above the text >for &dsig;rawX509Certificate and there state that the >RSA and DSA |KeyValue| structures may appear as the >target of a |RetrievalMethodType| identified by the >URIs: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#DSAKeyValue > http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#RSAKeyValue Ok, if I understand, you are suggesting: 1. We keep the &dsig;dsa-sha1 and &dsig;rsa-sha1 algorithm identifiers. 2. We create section 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 for a DSA and RSA key values, and give them their own URIs. 3. How much of section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 do we move up in 4.4.2? Everything after the example SignatureMethod? __ Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 10:28:02 UTC