- From: Brian LaMacchia <bal@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:13:43 -0800
- To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>, IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
I vote to keep the definition as it currently is. I can certainly think of situations in which I might want to transmit multiple KeyValues at once. (For example, as part of an XKMS transaction.) As KeyInfo is now referenced and used by multiple protocols we cannot assume that it or any of its child nodes will only occur in an XMLDSIG structure when modifying the specification. --bal -----Original Message----- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:reagle@w3.org] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:25 AM To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG Cc: TAMURA Kent Subject: Poll: Limiting KeyValue to a single Instance? In [1] Kent asked, "The current specification also permits multiple KeyValue elements in a KeyInfo element. What does this mean?" Given we've been trying to clarify other ambiguities, and with respect to the X509 SKI, SubjectName, and IssuerSerial, should we also limit KeyValue to occurring once and applying to the validation key, or should we keep the meaning that it's simply a "key that may be useful in validating the signature?" Please respond by end of Tuesday Feb 20th. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JanMar/0052.html __ Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Sunday, 18 February 2001 03:25:09 UTC