RE: XML interface with URIs

Phill,


Before agreeing on anything we have to understand the ins and outs of such a
decision.

For example:

1 - What do people refer to by CMS? CMS as specified by PKIX or PKCS#7 from
RSA.

2 - CMS implementations usually require the certificate-chain to be either
refer to or pass as an argument. What is the impact on XML-DSIG
implementation? Other crypto-algorithms require only the private-key.

...

Also, we can make sure that the specification provides for CMS without
making CMS mandatory. Actually, I would certainly vote against such a
proposition.

Sincerely,

Richard D. Brown


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-xml-sig-ws-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-xml-sig-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Phillip M
> Hallam-Baker
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 9:54 AM
> To: Bede McCall; w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org
> Subject: RE: XML interface with URIs
>
>
>
> >    From: "Phillip M Hallam-Baker" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> >    Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 16:35:56 +0200
> >
> > 	   So far there seems to be general agreement that the
> >    XML-Sig work should broadly correspond with CMS functionality
> >    without requiring ASN.1 at the packaging level.
> >
> > Speaking only for myself ... yes.  On the other hand, in
> keeping with
> > the spirit of accommodation for "binary" formats, I think
> we may want
> > to allow CMS blobs as part of the spec.
>
> I said 'without requiring'. I very much agree that CMS blobs should
> be an option. I see this as a backwards compatibility issue, at this
> point S/MIME is a legacy infrastructure.
>
> If there is no objection to allowing CMS blobs then we should
> incorporate them into the statement of consensus.
>
>
> 		Phill
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 April 1999 12:37:36 UTC