W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Updated Section 4.

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
Message-ID: <OF6983B672.DFB72ED5-ON49256AB1.0025A805@LocalDomain>


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:04 UTC