- From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:45:48 +0100
- To: "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Merlin, > By allowing these XMLDSIG defined elements to be extended, we > are restricting interoperability: What do I do with parts of an > X509Data that I don't understand? Ignoring them is not valid, > because they may be critical to the use of the element. Do we > add a criticality flag? Do we fudge the issue and say that if > a new part is critical you must define a new KeyInfo type? > > Forcing modified elements to be defined under a new namespace > solves these problems. If I don't understand the type I ignore > it. If I do understand it, I process it. [...] Allowing option (2) is the same mechanism at one structural level lower, isn't it? If there is information within a X509Data element which I do not understand, I simply ignore it. If the information is critical, then (1) must be used to derive a new x509 data type in a different namespace. 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 07:42:16 UTC