- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:13:44 -0400
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: "Takeshi Imamura" <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
On Wednesday 29 May 2002 07:36 pm, merlin wrote:
> However, all these changes boil down to a large refactoring
> of the decryption transform spec; and, if I am unique in
> my viewpoint, then I am at an impasse and must cede to the
> majority view and stand by my former stated views on the
> subject.
I think this is a great discussion; it's what happens when "implementors
hit the spec." <smile/> Beyond your new requirement which I'll address in a
separate email, I'm generally happy with the direction of what you propose,
but I'm most interested in the thoughts of other implementors, which at
this point [1] include IBM and Phaos
[1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2002/02-xenc-interop.html
1. In the present WD, we say we support the xmldsig profile XPtr (which is
same-document XPointers '#xpointer(/)' and '#xpointer(id('ID'))'. Anything
else is optional. You seem to be using more sophisticate pointers, are you
advocating a change in this level of support? (BTW: I think I've heard that
folks are reviving the XPtr work by breaking it into different
profiles/specs.) I'd prefer to keep this real simple and rely upon IDs.
2. In decryptIncludedNodes() why did you switch the order of steps 2 and 3?
(Makes it difficult to see the diffs, but maybe you had a reason.)
3. In decryptXML, if I have three elements I'm decrypted, via process one
do they all go into one octet stream, or is a group of 3 octets sets?
--
Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 12:14:23 UTC