RE: What to do with CryptoBinary?

At 19:28 3/26/2001 -0800, Brian LaMacchia wrote:
>CryptoBinary and base64Binary are not exactly equivalent -- there are
>further restrictions on a CryptoBinary because it is a representation of
>a single bignum.  From the latest DSIG draft, section 6.4, is this
>implicit definition of the CryptoBinary format

Ok, as we discussed, this bignum encoding rule we created for RSA and DSA 
KeyValues should probably apply to all the CryptoBinary types. So I've moved 
the text in section 6.4 and associate it with the CryptoBinary type [1]. The 
question then is there any definitions relying upon ds:CryptoBinary (i.e., 
SignatureValue, DigestValue, X509SKI, X509Certificate,  X509CRL, 
PGPKeyPacket) that should be of xsd:base64Binary (or any other variant)?

__


[1] 
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-CryptoBinary
4.0.1 The CryptoBinary Simple Type
This specification defines the CryptoBinary simple type for representing 
arbitrary-length integers (e.g. "bignums") in XML as octet strings. The 
integer value is first converted to a "big endian" bitstring. The bitstring 
is then padded with leading zero bits so that the total number of bits == 0 
mod 8 (so that there are an integral number of octets). If the bitstring 
contains entire leading octets that are zero, these are removed (so the 
high-order octet is always non-zero). This octet string is then base64 
[MIME] encoded. (The conversion from integer to octet string is equivalent 
to IEEE 1363's I2OSP [1363] with minimal length).

  Schema Definition:

    <simpleType name="CryptoBinary">
      <restriction base="base64Binary">
      </restriction>
    </simpleType>



__
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, 27 March 2001 14:50:27 UTC