Re: CipherData rationale

Joseph,

I agree with you that we should define our Transforms element to clarify
its behavior, especially what is the input to the first Transform and what
the output from the last Transform is passed to.

Thanks,
Takeshi IMAMURA
Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research
imamu@jp.ibm.com



From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> on 2001/06/05 06:41 AM

Please respond to "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>

To:   Takeshi Imamura/Japan/IBM@IBMJP
cc:   "Frederick J. Hirsch" <hirsch@zolera.com>, <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: CipherData rationale



At 03:18 5/30/2001, Takeshi Imamura wrote:
>By the way, in your example, you specify C14N as a transform, but C14N is
>not reversible and cannot be specified.

BTW: Since we have a different behaviour for our transforms, should we
*not*
use the ds:Transforms element as we presently do? Should we define an
enc:Transforms (of ds:TransformsType ?) to make this clear?


--
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 Wednesday, 6 June 2001 02:13:32 UTC