- From: Dournaee, Blake <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:49:01 -0700
- To: "'John Boyer'" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
John, Can you think of a possible example? I'm not even sure where this would fit in at this point. Canonicalization is a very expensive operation for XML Signatures, and if it is left as an acceptable transform without much further explanation I am guessing that it will be used unnecessarily, further slowing down practical implementations. Blake Dournaee Toolkit Applications Engineer RSA Security "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" - Socrates -----Original Message----- From: John Boyer [mailto:JBoyer@PureEdge.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 3:07 PM To: Dournaee, Blake; Joseph M. Reagle Jr. Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org Subject: RE: C14N Argument Hi Blake, It could be useful, now or in the future, to put another transform after c14n. John Boyer Senior Product Architect, Software Development Internet Commerce System (ICS) Team PureEdge Solutions Inc. Trusted Digital Relationships v: 250-708-8047 f: 250-708-8010 1-888-517-2675 http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Dournaee, Blake [mailto:bdournaee@rsasecurity.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:47 PM To: 'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.' Cc: 'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org' Subject: C14N Argument Hello All, There is something that I have been pondering about XML Signatures. Specifically, the current Candidate Rec allows for the use of Canonical XML as a transform in the "transformation pipeline" above and beyond the use of C14N to convert any node-set to octets. Consider this Argument: 1. If a Reference is to be processed as "XML" (node-set), it will be canonicalized implicitly when the node-set is converted to octets at the end of the transformation pipeline. 2. If a Reference is to be processed as octets, canonicalization is meaningless, since we don't know what the file format is anyhow 3. C14N, when used as a part of the transformation pipeline is redundant. Is there some exception to my argument here? What is missing? Kind Regards, Blake Dournaee Toolkit Applications Engineer RSA Security "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" - Socrates
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 18:45:55 UTC