- From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:46:14 +0100
- To: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
r/IMAMU@jp.ibm.com/2002.06.18/17:17:40 >I like the XML-mode because it supports super-decryption and reduces the >number of times of serialization/parsing, while I'm not sure of the >binary-mode because it seems to be a little application-specific. So I'm >thinking that I will employ most of the XML-mode with a slight change in >order to support binary decryption as supported by the current draft. I disagree with this proposed change. As I tried to state in my text, the XML mode is intended to support applications where parts of an XML document MAY be encrypted after it is signed. The binary mode is intended to support the signing of binary data that MUST be encrypted. Bear in mind that the target of a binary-mode transform cannot be in plaintext form (i.e., unencrypted); we require that it be parsable XML. It is incorrect (and I was thus wrong to originally request it in this manner) to combine the two under the same algorithm URI; they are fundamentally different operations. Merlin
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 08:46:57 UTC