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

Re: XML Signatures and binary files

From: johnmessing <johnmessing@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 07:13:52 -0700
Message-ID: <001501c0dfa4$ca110ec0$bcb91d26@lawonline>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I would make mime-type optional.

----- Original Message -----
From: "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>; "Dournaee, Blake"
<bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>; <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: XML Signatures and binary files

> I've always thought that Encoding and MimeType were a bit
> weird. They seem only to have meaning for character content
> (which will be the minority of uses), the encoding is implicit
> in the Transforms applied of the corresponding Reference and
> the MimeType can be represented by its Type attribute. It
> would make more sense to me if they were defined on a MimeData
> element that could be used within Object, but I would not
> even advocate that.
> Merlin
> r/reagle@w3.org/2001.05.17/09:24:46
> >At 08:34 5/17/2001 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
> >>Close, but I would think it would be more like
> >>
> >><Object Id="arbitraryBase64EncodedData"
> >>         Encoding="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#base64"
> >>         MimeType="application/octet-stream">
> >
> >The reason this concerned me is I think the spec is a bit ambigous on
> >note. In your instance the Encoding and MimeType are redundant -- I
> >Or is the MimeType the type of the object regardless of its encoding?
> >
> >__
> >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,
> or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of
> 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
> 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 Friday, 18 May 2001 10:09:32 UTC

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