W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > November 2001

Re: Decryption Transform Specification

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:26:36 -0500
To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011113222637.596F587415@policy.w3.org>
On Monday 12 November 2001 1:38, Takeshi Imamura wrote:
> >- Why is it only applicable to EncryptedData? Why shouldn't I be able
> >to have a signature that includes an EncryptedKey in its scope and
> >still protect it?
> You can have such a signature, and this transform does not do anything
> for EncryptedKey elements in its scope.

I think Don was asking why do we do this? Do we want to include 
EncryptedKey as within the scope of processing? I don't feel strongly one 
way or the other. Don, do you have a specific scenario in mind?

>Joseph, could you fix these?

Yep. [new revision: 1.12]


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 17:26:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:05 UTC