- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:03:34 -0400
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Thanks for responding in the right place even though I originally posted the message in the wrong place :-) I've fowarded my other message, re signature portability, etc., here... Thanks, Donald From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie> To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com> Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org In-reply-to: <200105301642.MAA0000029927@torque.pothole.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:48:46 +0100 Message-Id: <20010530174846.EB05543CA6@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com> >[ Moved over from xml-encryption@w3.org (Donald, your other post is there too) ] > >I agree with dropping it. If mgmtdata is to be used in a proprietary >way, then better that people must define their own proprietary element >to do the job. > >Merlin > >r/dee3@torque.pothole.com/2001.05.30/12:42:12 >> >>The MgmtData element has no defined internal structure and is just >>described as providing in-band key distribution related information >>such as encrypted key or key agreement information. This is clearly >>not interoperable without further definition. >> >>In the XML Encryption WG, EncryptedKey and AgreementMethod elements >>are being defined which offer interoperabile ways to do these things. >>Given this, is there any reason to keep MgmtData in the standard? If >>there is someone using it, it could be moved to the additional URIs >>draft. In any case, I believe its use should be deprecated and use of >>the potentially interoperable methods being defined in the XML >>Encryption WG encouraged. >> >>Thanks, >>Donald >>===================================================================== >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com >> 155 Beaver Street +1 508-634-2066(h) >> Milford, MA 01757 USA +1 508-261-5434(w) >> > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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, 30 May 2001 14:04:34 UTC