- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:03:26 -0500
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: XML Encryption WG <xml-encryption@w3.org>, "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>
[ http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-core/ $Revision: 1.71 $ on $Date: 2001/11/13 22:02:34 $ GMT by $Author: reagle $ ] Ok, text is tweaked and the type of nonce is changed to integer. On Tuesday 06 November 2001 8:37, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: > I think the Schema is left over from when the actual nonce value was > present in the attribute. It should probably be of type "integer". And, > yes, the nonce needs to be prepended to the plaintext. > > Donald > > From: "Dournaee, Blake" <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com> > Message-ID: <E7B6CB80230AD31185AD0008C7EBC4D202A1B67D@exrsa01.rsa.com> > To: XML Encryption WG <xml-encryption@w3.org> > Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 17:09:05 -0800 > > >Hello All, > > > >I am still unclear on how the nonce value is dealt with in <CipherData>. > > The schema definition says that the attribute value is supposed to be > > Base-64 encoded binary value, but there is no mention of the actual > > value itself. Is it just an integer length of the nonce? If so, why > > even bother with encoding it? > > > >Also, this sentence is confusing (Section 3.2): > > > >"The optional Nonce attribute specifies the presence and length of a > > nonce value that is prepended to the CipherValue or data identified by > > the CipherReference" > > > >This isn't exactly correct - the nonce is prepended to the plain-text, > > not the cipher text, correct? (Maybe I am wrong.) > > > > > >Blake Dournaee > >Toolkit Applications Engineer > >RSA Security > > > >"The only thing I know is that I know nothing" - Socrates -- 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 Tuesday, 13 November 2001 17:03:32 UTC