- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:05:30 -0400
- To: Amir Herzberg <AMIR@newgenpay.com>, XML Encryption WG <xml-encryption@w3.org>
On Sunday 16 September 2001 11:23, Amir Herzberg wrote: > I think Joe's scenario would work. Few comments: > > 1. Don't we need to copy the ID's to the EncryptedData tags for the > references to work, e.g.: > > <AlphabetiSphagetti> > <A id="a"/> > <EncryptedData id="b" xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#' > Type='http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#Element'> > <CipherData> > .... For the references to work to what end? For the Signature Transform [1], or something else? [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-decrypt > 2. What if we want the signature to also include a regular (mandatory, > not Manifest) SignedInfo for parts of the document which are never > encrypted? E.g. suppose the document is: > > <AlphabetiSphagetti> > <NonEncrypted1/> > <A id="a"/> > <B id="b"/> > <C id="c"/> > <NonEncrypted2/> > </AlphabetiSphagetti> > > and we want to always provide a signature for the non-encrypted parts, > which also can validate the encrypted components (if available in > plaintext). > > In this case I think we need to add to the <SignedInfo> a reference to > the entire document with a transform to remove the encrypted elements. Do > we have to use XPATH for this? I'm not so happy with requiring such a > heavy - and optional to implement - mechanism. I'm not sure I understand, "which also can validate the encrypted components (if available in plaintext)." You could still have a Reference which identified specific data as well as a manifest. Are you familiar with [1]? [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-decrypt > 3. Text discussing this should be added to XML Encryption and /or DSIG > (even if we can put most of it in DSIG I think a short comment in XML > Encrypt is necessary). If we went this route, I think the Encryption spec is the right place . > 4. I still think adding DigestValue as optional element to EncryptedData > is simpler way to achieve this function. But as long as the functionality > is there, I'm Ok. Once I'm sure I've addressed your questions such that my scenario can satisfy the requirements, I'll poll the list.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 18:06:04 UTC