- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:42:44 -0500
- To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, Brian LaMacchia <bal@microsoft.com>, "Carl Wallace" <cwallace@erols.com>
Carl indicated he'd like the KeyValue to refer to the validation key; Brian pointed out that this structure is already being used in other contexts were multiple instances are used. Given this issue didn't command intense passions nor agreement I suppose we should stick with what we have: "a key that may be useful in validating the signature?" Kent, does this answer your question satisfactorily? ----- Original Message ----- >From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org> >To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> >Cc: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp> >Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:24 PM >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 Tuesday, 20 February 2001 18:43:08 UTC