- From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:50:34 +0100
- To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
r/IMAMU@jp.ibm.com/2002.06.11/01:08:49 Hi Takeshi, >>2) Encryptor-specified superdecryption >> >> c) The encryptor super-encrypts unexceptional EncryptedData, >> mindful of the potential problems. It indicates this by >> using the SuperEncryptedData Type, and utilizing >> mechanisms to overcome the problems if necessary. > >As I pointed out before, this is not possible when a signature is not >given. Also, when encrypting exceptional and unexceptional EncryptedData >elements together, how should we do so? > >However, I agree with you that, if a signature is given, an encryptor can >decide which EncryptedData element should be decrypted. So how about the >following, which is opposite to 2): > >3) Encryptor-specified super-undecryption > >Decrypt all the EncryptedData elements recursively except for those >specified by the super-encrypting EncryptedData element. Those could be >specified by decrypt:Except elements specified as encryption properties. >The mechanisms you proposed could be used in order to the problems. > >This provides the same function as 2), but it would suit the concept of >decryption transform much better. This means that we don't have to >reimplement the transform from scratch. How do you feel? I think that this is a good option. But, I trust that you are speaking broadly in the context of the modified description of the decrypt transform (#13b)? If so, I will try and draw up some more explicit text. Merlin
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 23:51:05 UTC