- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:03:47 -0400
- To: <jimsch@exmsft.com>
- Cc: "'XML Encryption WG '" <xml-encryption@w3.org>
[Resulting version: http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/05/11-proposal.html Includes changes from feedback from Dillaway, Schaad, Simon, Takeshi, and Schaad/Farrell .] At 14:45 4/22/2001 -0700, Jim Schaad wrote: >Section 2.1.3: >1. I don't understand the need for the Type as currently written in the >super-encrypted example. Why is this not "...#Element" rather than >"..#EncryptedData"? The processing is going to be the same in either case. >The element that is decrypted could have an EncryptedData element at the >top-level or any place below that so the recusive processing needs to be >done. I underscored it hoping to get just this sort of feedback. Do people care care about describing the thing encrypted as one of the types we define, or is element sufficient? (Given your comment, I moved it back to #element). >Section 2.2.1: >2. The line number is off as s2 is missing leading to a mis-match between >the text and the example. Fixed. >3. Either the IV should be present or a comment should be present as >cryptographers are going to say "where is the IV" on this example. I thought we agreed that the IV is algorithm specific and encoded as part of the value in the CipherData? (So for [s6], I should say the dummy value includes an encoded IV?) >Section 2.2.2: >4. The NameKey element should be on the EncryptedKey element not on line >t05. This does not match the existing schema. Additionally even if you >have this, the concept of having both key (symetric and asymmetric) using >the same key name is going to lead to problems in any system. Ok, please review t05,t09,t16. >Section 3.4.2: >5. For KeyRetrievalMethod, since the type is fixed I think that it can be >omitted from the schema for the item. What about using ds:RetrievalMethod and just having people use the type? >Schema Question: >6. I noticed that you are using the extension capabilities of schema. The >question I have is that if you add elements are these element appended to >prepended to the base element? Not sure I follow. Which element or complexType? __ 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 Friday, 11 May 2001 18:04:56 UTC