- From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:07:16 +0100
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Donald, [...] > (2) In this case, one would logically recommend adding subelements to > SPKIData, X509Data, or PGPData where you are complementing it but if > you are replacing it with a sufficiently new SPKI, X509, or PGP key > info element, then you should define a new element under KeyInfo as > you would if you were defining a entirely new type of child element > under KeyInfo. I think that (2) should be the way if SPKIData/X509Data/PGPData is to be complemented by some additional information. This would allow that implementations not aware of the complementing subelements can still evaluate the SPKIData/X509Data/PGPData. If the changes to such types are so substantially, that they do not share a minimal structure with the ur types, then I think completely new elements under KeyInfo should be defined. I do not see a good reason for allowing (3). If you want to introduce typing, use the means XML Schema provides, i.e. do it as proposed in (1). Regards, Gregor --------------------------------------------------------------- DI Gregor Karlinger mailto:gregor.karlinger@iaik.at http://www.iaik.at Phone +43 316 873 5541 Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications Austria ---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 03:03:37 UTC