Re: additional XMLDSIG URIs

"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>@w3.org on 04/19/2001
09:12:45 AM

Sent by:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org


To:   "Brian LaMacchia" <bal@microsoft.com>
cc:   <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <lde008@dms.isg.mot.com>
Subject:  Re: additional XMLDSIG URIs
(snip)
My draft doesn't prohibit there being anything at the URL's. These
additional URIs are, at this instant, not part of the W3C standard or
otherwise in the orbit of the W3C.  The XMDLSIG standard permits
algorithms defined by other orgnanizations, such as these, and does
not require them to be dereferencable.  Do you want to change the
XMLDSIG standard to require dereferencability?

But I still don't understand why you assume the suggested URIs would
not be dereferencable.  In fact, I would think that the IETF would be
more stable and better able to keep material there than you typical
current dot.com.  Furthermore, I can't understand why you say they
would be like OIDs.  There is no global database or protocol system
associated with OIDs that I am aware of.  Domain names and URIs are
inherently different in having a global database, which usually
contains physical address pointers, and a system of protocols
associated with them.

[TG] The closest thing I know of to a global database currently existing
for OID's is Harald Alvestrand's volunteer effort at
http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/.  It is far from comprehensive, but
individuals who have assigned new OID's for their organizations may submit
the definitions there.  ITU's X.660 standard does not mandate any form of
publication, and dereferencing an OID from ANSI cost USD 40 the last time I
looked.  There is a distributed global database for OID's, but there is no
common publication or distribution method even recommended.

(snip)

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 10:12:22 UTC