- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:25:59 -0400
- To: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
- Cc: "Public XML Encryption List" <xml-encryption@w3.org>, swick@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Ed, As stated after the Crypto BoF, in your proposal [1] I recommend you break up your NodeType into a location (location of the EncryptedNode's encrypted serialization -- if not present in the element content) and NodeType (the URIs of the Information Set item provided by [2]). Instead of <EncryptedNode xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/Encryption" NodeType="." <!-- "." indicates the <EncryptedNode> element is right where the original unencrypted element was --> EncryptionInfo="#encryptionInfo23"> (Base64 of encrypted Element node) </EncryptedNode> this: <EncryptedNode xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/Encryption" Location="." InformationSetItem="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/infoset#Element" EncryptionInfo="#encryptionInfo23"> (Base64 of encrypted Element node) </EncryptedNode> Futhermore, if Location is intended to be a URI the "." hack/syntax for the present node will probably be problematic. I'm presently scratching my head about the best structure/relation of these things to each other (describing Information Set Items/Nodes in the context of a serialized Information Set Items/Nodes where both instances have a relationship to each other...) Hopefully I'll post more within the week. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2000Aug/att-0001/01-xmlenc overview.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-infoset-20000726 _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2000 13:26:05 UTC