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

Re: Empty SignedInfo elements properly canonicalized in examples?

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 15:39:11 -0400
Message-Id: <200106041939.PAA0000038225@torque.pothole.com>
To: Jesse Pelton <jsp@PKC.com>
cc: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

There is no need for the SignedInfo to be in canonical form if the
SignatureValue was calculated using the canonical form and is verified
using the canonical form. That this was done for generation and is to
be done for verification is whatthe content of CanonicalizationMethod


From:  Jesse Pelton <jsp@PKC.com>
Message-ID:  <CC6353ECB19ED4118E9500A0C99D6DCC08E45B@PKC_VT01>
To:  "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>
Cc:  "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Date:  Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:09:54 -0400 

>That makes sense for all examples except the two I cited. Since those are
>examples of specifying a CanonicalizationMethod, shouldn't they be
>represented using that method? It seems confusing to give examples that are
>invalid. If I understand the spec correctly, you couldn't actually validate
>the example in 2.1, which is represented as a (presumably correct) detached
>signature of the content of the XHTML 1.0 recommendation.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
>Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:00 PM
>To: Jesse Pelton
>Cc: 'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'
>Subject: Re: Empty SignedInfo elements properly canonicalized in
>Examples in the dsig spec are not canonicalized. I added a sentence to 
>[s03], "Note that this example, and all examples in this specification, are 
>not in canonical form."
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 15:41:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:05 UTC