AW: AW: KeyInfo Extensibility poll

Hi Merlin,

> >You are right, this is the cleaner solution, since there are less options
> >to do similar things. But (2) allows it to augment types, and this types
> >can still be used by applications only aware of the basic XML-Signature
> >syntax.
> If the data is critical to understanding an X509Data, then we
> agree that a new type MyX509Data must be defined. If it is not
> critical to understanding the X509Data, then why not place it
> in an X509DataExt element within the KeyInfo?
> I just don't see the tangible benefit of dirtying (you seem to
> agree that 2 is less clean) our primitive types.

I discussed this issue further (off-list) with Carl, and I have to
admit, the longer we talk about it, the less I am convinced of
the benefits of (2). My consideration was the same one as those in
your second paragraph above.

Regards, Gregor
DI Gregor Karlinger
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications

Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 02:48:28 UTC