- From: Carl Wallace <cwallace@erols.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:02:06 -0500
- To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> 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. It is a similar mechanism one level lower, but isn't it cleaner for the mechanism to exist at one level instead of two and in one data type instead of five? Option two opens the possibility of encountering an X509Data element, or potentially worse a KeyValue element, that contains only material that you do not understand. Carl Wallace Corsec Security, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 07:57:44 UTC