Re: KeyInfo type URIs

Hi Joseph,

Yes, yes, and I think everything after the example SignatureValue?

Merlin

r/reagle@w3.org/2001.04.11/10:27:43
>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/
>
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
   http://www.baltimore.com

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 11:52:29 UTC