W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: KeyInfo type URIs

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:27:43 -0400
Message-Id: <>
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
>   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 and 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:04 UTC