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

Re: Decryption Transform processing question

From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:24:33 +0900
To: reagle@w3.org, merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF244FB1C8.D592C6FC-ON49256BE2.00514901@LocalDomain>


I'm sorry to be late, but please find the updated draft below.  In the
draft, I borrowed most of Merlin's text and also tried to clarify the
processing rules by dividing them in two functions.  I gave up supporting
binary decryption combined with XML decryption because it seems to be
difficult to gain your support.  So if necessary, I can add to the draft a
section for the binary-mode.  Anyway, any comments are welcome.

(See attached file: 20020624.html)

Tokyo Research Laboratory
IBM Research

                      Joseph Reagle                                                                                                
                      <reagle@w3.org>           To:       merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, Takeshi Imamura/Japan/IBM@IBMJP            
                      Sent by:                  cc:       xml-encryption@w3.org                                                    
                      xml-encryption-req        Subject:  Re: Decryption Transform processing question                             
                      2002/06/20 06:33                                                                                             
                      Please respond to                                                                                            

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 Monday, 24 June 2002 12:29:10 UTC

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