- From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:44:20 +0900
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Hi Merlin, >>>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. I probably understand your text, but am I speaking anything strange? Anyway, more explicit text would be helpful. I will try to make some text on my proposal, too. Thanks, Takeshi IMAMURA Tokyo Research Laboratory IBM Research imamu@jp.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 12:44:21 UTC