- From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:20:18 +0900
- To: reagle@w3.org
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Joseph, Your document looks good. I have a few comments: In Section 4.1, step 3.1, a sentence like the following should be added: "The Encryptor is not required to perform validation on the serialized XML." In Section 4.1, step 4, it is described only how to build the EncryptedData element. It should be also described how to build the EncryptedKey element. In Section 4.1, step 5.1, it should be noted that re-encoding may be required when replacing the identified XML with the EncryptedData element. In Section 4.2, step 4.3, a sentence like the following should be added: "The application supplies the XML Document context and identifies the EncryptedData element being replaced." Thanks, Takeshi IMAMURA Tokyo Research Laboratory IBM Research imamu@jp.ibm.com From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>@w3.org on 2001/08/23 06:28 Please respond to reagle@w3.org Sent by: xml-encryption-request@w3.org To: "Blair Dillaway" <blaird@microsoft.com>, "XML Encryption WG" <xml-encryption@w3.org> cc: Subject: Re: Updated Section 4. On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:53, Blair Dillaway wrote: > Attached is my suggested update to Section 4 of the spec. Joseph, I've > put it in HTML as you requested. This reflects my earlier proposal and > feedback from Ed and Takeshi. I've also done an editorial pass to clean > up the wording in several places. Thanks Blair, it's now clear it was under-specified before! <smile/> I've had a go as well. I made a bunch of tweaks but I think most are for the best. (If I missed something, please push back.) Some of the substantive tweaks/questions I have are: 1. On the replace, do we need to force the encoding of EncryptedData during encryption? (Probably so....) 2. Also, I thought we agreed that the encrypt and replace was REQUIRED to implement but optional to use?
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 03:20:41 UTC