- From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Date: 2000年7月19日 19:44:01 +0100
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200007191844.TAA08771@bobcat.baltimore.ie>
r/dee3@torque.pothole.com/2000.07.19/13:40:29 >Making some of this stuff optional seems reasonable but I would think >that a lot of implementations would just pass off the uri to some >retrieval mechanism without looking inside it and still want a >separate indication of type and encoding. >Donald I agree. I just don't grasp the reason for the current structure of the element. It seems to me that a minimal specification would be [1]: <RetrievalMethod Location="http://..." Type="foo#x509-certificate" Encoding="bar#base64" /> A more pedantic specification would be [2]: <RetrievalMethod Type="foo#x509-certificate> <Location>http://...</Location> <Encoding Algorithm="bar#base64" /> </RetrievalMethod> Type could be expanded into an element, if desired. However, I can't see how Type would be more than a URI, nor do I see the impact of Encoding on Type, as captured in the current spec: <RetrievalMethod> <Location>http://...</Location> <Method><x:From-ASN1-To-Key-Info-Foo /></Method> <Type Encoding="bar#base64"><x:Its-A-X509-Certificate-Foo /></Type> </RetrievalMethod> As I say, I just don't fully understand what would be a default implementation of the current element specification. Merlin [1] <element name='RetrievalMethod'> <complexType content='mixed'> <any namespace='##other' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/> </complexType> <attribute name='Location' type='uriReference' use='required'> <attribute name='Type' type='uriReference' use='optional'/> <attribute name='Encoding' type='uriReference' use='optional'> </element> [2] <element name='RetrievalMethod'> <complexType content='elementOnly'> <sequence minOccurs='1' maxOccurs='1'> <element name='Location' type='uriReference' minOccurs='1' maxOccurs='1'/> <element ref='ds:Encoding' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/> </sequence> <attribute name='Type' type='uriReference' use='optional'/> </complexType> </element> <element name='Encoding'> <complexType content='mixed'> <any namespace='##other' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/> <attribute name='Algorithm' type='uriReference' use='required'/> </complexType> </element> >From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie> >Message-Id: <200007182220.XAA10671@bobcat.baltimore.ie> >To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> >Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> >In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20000718162839.00ad5e70@localhost> >Date: 2000年7月18日 23:20:57 +0100 > >>r/reagle@w3.org/2000.07.18/16:28:39 >>>At 19:30 7/18/00 +0100, Merlin Hughes wrote: >>> >The Schema has mandatory content for the Type element. This >>> >seems wrong because it can't then be implemented interoperably >>> >without further specification. >>> >>>Are you suggestion it be change to optional? >>> >>> <element name='Type'> >>> <complexType content='mixed'> >>> <any namespace='##other' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'/> >>> ... >> >>Something of that nature. RetrievalMethod simply seems >>underspecified given that it "SHOULD" be implemented. >>By making some of those parts optional, it could be >>read as minimally and sufficiently specified. >> >>For example, it seems reasonable to present a RetrievalMethod >>with the Location: >> >> ldap://ldap.baltimore.ie/CN=merlin?userCertificate;binary >> >>What, in this case, do I specify as the Method and Type, >>both of which are currently mandatory? >> >>By making Method and Type optional I can, at the very least, >>assume that the recipient will determine the type of key >>information from the URI. >> >>Merlin >> >
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 14:44:18 UTC