- From: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:43:22 -0400
- To: xml-encryption@w3.org
Please change "I'm the author of the original text, we just need to be clear that it is a little different." to "I'm the author of the original text mentioning 'reversible transforms'. My main objective was to clarify the contrast between the processing of transforms when signing&verifying compared to when encrypting&decrypting. Don has suggested the spec just needs to cover transforms from the decrypting point of view which is fine with me; the implementation gotchas I was discussing can be covered in other non-normative material." Please change "While not symmetrically reversable from a character by character view, it is sort of reversable" to "While not symmetrically reversible from a character by character view, if the the canonicalized version is adequate for the application's purposes, all's well. A transform only needs to be reversible to the extent you can get back the stuff you care about. Since one would not use canonicalization if it was important to get back the lost info, there is no issue with the use of canonicalization in transforms." We're dropping the discussion of 'reversible transforms' from the spec so the last item is moot anyway. Note that "reversable" is correctly spelled "reversible". Ed -- Original Message -- >As always comments, corrections, discussion are welcome. > >http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Minutes/010611-tele.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, 11 June 2001 18:02:40 UTC