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

Re: Decryption Transform processing question

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:33:23 -0400
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020619213323.C7D76866F6@aeon.w3.org>

Taking Merlin's comment into consideration, I'm looking forward to seeing 
Takeshi's latest draft even if I disagree with parts of it because given 
the few turns this conversation has taken, it'll help me better identify 
those issues. <smile/>

On Tuesday 18 June 2002 08:46 am, merlin wrote:
> 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.
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2002 17:33:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:09 UTC