- From: Philip Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:52:59 -0800
- To: "'Ed Simon'" <ed.simon@entrust.com>, "'xml-encryption@w3.org'" <xml-encryption@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F40154C74D@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
The point at which confusion is likely to arrise in implementations is
whether an 'entire XML document' encrypted should or should not have the
prologue under the encryption.
It is arguable that a 'whole document encrypted' should have two prologues.
The first would be for the encryption data, the sencond encrypted inside the
encryption data.
I doubt it will make a huge difference except to cause implementations to
fail to interoperate so it is important that the spec be very clear on the
choice made but probably not that important as to what is chosen.
Probably the way to make a choice on the matter is to consider whther an
XML2.0 document could be encrypted using an XML 1.0 encryption toolset...
argues for 2 prologues??
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Simon [mailto:ed.simon@entrust.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:04 PM
To: 'xml-encryption@w3.org'
Subject: RE: Encrypting entire documents in XML Proposal?
It is true that well-formed documents require a prologue but it is
also true that the prologue may be empty. In other words,
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>
<root>
<a><b>
</root>
is well-formed but so is
<root>
<a><b>
</root>
In both cases, if encrypting the entire XML instance, one
would end up with
<EncryptedData Type="Document"
xmlns=".../xml/encryption">
...
</EncryptedData>
which is also a well-formed document which has an empty prologue and
is therefore, by default, UTF-8 and version 1.0.
A question which remains to be answered is whether this model
stands the test of various character encodings. I believe
Hiroshi and Takeshi feel that various character encodings could
cause problems (Hiroshi and Takeshi, please correct me if I
misunderstand). As for me, I expect that there could be a
problem here, but I don't want to introduce a requirement for
canonicalization unless I see proof of it.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Thane Plambeck [ mailto:tplambeck@verisign.com
<mailto:tplambeck@verisign.com> ]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:57 PM
To: 'xml-encryption@w3.org'
Subject: FW: Encrypting entire documents in XML Proposal?
In section 5.7 of this doc (encrypting an entire XML document)
perhaps the prologue should not be encrypted? At least we perserve
well-formedness then for entire documents.
I realize that encrypting just the root element and not the prologue
is already covered by the case of encrypting an entire element.
So I guess the question is, should XML Encryption really say anything
about encrypting entire documents, including the prologue? If it does
then we are left with the consequence of XML Document encryption leaving
us with non-well formed XML, which requires a prologue.
Thane
Thane Plambeck
tplambeck@verisign.com
http://www.verisign.com <http://www.verisign.com>
650 429 5247 direct, Mt View Office
650 321 4884 home office
650 323 4928 home office fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Blair Dillaway [ mailto:blaird@microsoft.com
<mailto:blaird@microsoft.com> ]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:41 PM
To: xml-encryption@w3.org
Cc: Hiroshi Maruyama; Brian LaMacchia; Barb Fox; 'Ed Simon'; 'Takeshi
Imamura'; jimsch@nwlink.com
Subject: Proposal for XML Encryption Syntax and Processing
We respectfully submit the attached specification
as a suggested starting point for the XML Encryption Working
Group effort. This work builds on earlier papers and
on-going discussions.
We look forward to comments and continuing discussions
to resolve the open issues identified in this document.
Regards,
Blair Dillaway, Barbara Fox, Takeshi Imamura,
Brian LaMacchia, Hiroshi Maruyama, Jim Schaad,
Ed Simon
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 14:53:02 UTC