W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Status of Documents and Contributor Status'

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:08:18 -0500
Message-Id: <200202261608.LAA0000021645@torque.pothole.com>
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
cc: xml-encryption@w3.org

From:  merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
To:  reagle@w3.org
Cc:  xml-encryption@w3.org
In-reply-to:  <200202252055.PAA25765@tux.w3.org> 
Date:  Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:48:04 +0000
Message-Id:  <20020226144804.7D51143CEA@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

>Minor nit in 5.5.2, DH Key Agreement; it is still not completely
>clear what is the input to KM:
>. The examples need to match their field ordering with the
>  definition.

Example should chang, I think, to

SHA-1 ( ZZ01Example:Block/Algfoo80 )

and the text above it should refer back to the EncryptionMethod
example above, NOT the AgreementMethod example.  This makes the
numeric example be

SHA-1 ( 0xDEADBEEF30314578616D706C652F416C67666f6f3830 )

I'll try doing this and getting the output value later today.

>. The field descriptions (DigestAlg/EncryptionAlg/...)
>  should ideally match the ordering in the definition.


>. The counter encoding needs to specify upper/lower case hex.

"A one byte counter starting and one can incrementing by one. It
is expressed as two hex digits where letters A through F are in
upper case."

>. The first example encodes the counter as "001", should be "01".

Sorry, typo.

>. Digest method is optional; what happens when none is specified?

You have to know what it is, same as you have to know the Originator
or Recipient info if they are not specified.

>. Should we specify operation with hmac (key length == mac output
>  length)?

I don't think the added complexity is worth it.



>>In preparation for publication as CRs next week, I'm working on getting all 
>>the documents up to date. For instance, I've removed the red diff from [1], 
>>updated the references, and made the tweak I suggested to Don in the last 
>>email (note this changes some of the section numbers). A part of these the 
>>final tweaks is the population of the "good standing" WG participants and 
>>last call thank you's. If you see any errors in the draft please let me 
>>know ASAP (including any questions about participation/standing).
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-core/Overview.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/
>Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
>or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
>message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
>Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
>computer viruses.
>   http://www.baltimore.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 11:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:07 UTC