RE: Latest Rough Draft

Section 2.1.3:
1. I don't understand the need for the Type as currently written in the
super-encrypted example.  Why is this not "...#Element" rather than
"..#EncryptedData"?  The processing is going to be the same in either case.
The element that is decrypted could have an EncryptedData element at the
top-level or any place below that so the recusive processing needs to be
done.

Section 2.2.1:
2. The line number is off as s2 is missing leading to a mis-match between
the text and the example.
3. Either the IV should be present or a comment should be present as
cryptographers are going to say "where is the IV" on this example.

Section 2.2.2:
4. The NameKey element should be on the EncryptedKey element not on line
t05.  This does not match the existing schema.  Additionally even if you
have this, the concept of having both key (symetric and asymmetric) using
the same key name is going to lead to problems in any system.

Section 3.4.2:
5.  For KeyRetrievalMethod, since the type is fixed I think that it can be
omitted from the schema for the item.

Schema Question:
6.  I noticed that you are using the extension capabilities of schema.  The
question I have is that if you add elements are these element appended to
prepended to the base element?

jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-encryption-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-encryption-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph M.
> Reagle Jr.
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:57 PM
> To: XML Encryption WG
> Subject: Latest Rough Draft
>
>
>
> I'm sure it has many errors, and clumsy feet, but hopefully a
> few steps in
> the right direction.
>          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/04/06-proposal.html
>
> __
> 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 Monday, 23 April 2001 00:02:13 UTC