- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 03:53:06 -0400
- To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Fuller [mailto:james.fuller.2007@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:44 AM > To: Toman, Vojtech > Cc: xproc-dev@w3.org > Subject: Re: EXProc proposal: pxp:hmac-sha1 (and pxp:hmac-md5) > I would stump up for just defining exproc:hmac-sha1 on the algorithm > option on existing p:hash instread of a new step? Afterall it is > defined as a Qname ... which does make me think of what namespace the > existing options are in ;) I was thinking about this, too, but my feeling is that would be twisting of p:hash. In my opinion, p:hash is an implementation of a hash function, whereas things like HMAC-SHA1 apply a hash function iteratively. But I am no expert in cryptography, so maybe what you are proposing is the right thing to do. It would also be the simplest solution. We would would only need to say that the message to sign will be read from the "parameters" port of the p:hash step (or something like that). Regards, Vojtech
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 07:54:21 UTC