- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:39:22 -0500
- To: Mike Wray <mjw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Paul.Lambert@cosinecom.com
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org, <jimsch5@home.com>, <pbaker@verisign.com>
blargh, that's "it's now clear we need a requirement one way or the other" and "This issue is *now* captured in the requirements". At 09:31 2/26/2001 -0500, Mike Wray wrote: > > # On Integrity Checking > > > >I propose that "integrity" requirements be added: > > > >x. The specification must provide mechanisms to check the integrity of > >decrypted data. Mandatory to implement algorithms should include integrity > >check mechanisms. Well, we its now clear we need a requirement one way or the other as this has come up in the past, most recently on January 8th [1]. Philip Hallam-Baker [2] and Jim Schaad [3] opposed this requirement for the reasons in the referenced thread. Could you speak to the points they raised? This issue is not captured in the requirements document [4]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Jan/0011.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Jan/0014.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Jan/0059.html [4] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/01/23-xml-encryption-req#req-integrity __ 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/ __ 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, 26 February 2001 10:40:35 UTC