In the table below, red is in the WG decision column indicates that the Working Group didn't agree with the comment, green indicates that a it agreed with it, and yellow reflects an in-between situation.
In the "Commentor reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the request for feedback.
Commentor | Comment | Working Group decision | Commentor reply |
---|---|---|---|
LC-2594
Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@osu.edu> (archived comment) |
|
Replace 3281 with 3218 in text | yes |
LC-2581
MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> (archived comment) |
|
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2012Jan/0019.html To address this concern, I've updated the XML Encryption 1.1 editor's draft RSA-OAEP section 5.5.2, http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlenc-core-11/Overview.html#sec-RSA-OAEP to contain the following: [[ The XML Encryption 1.0 schema definition and description for the EncryptionMethod element is in section 3.2 The EncryptionMethod Element<http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlenc-core-11/Overview.html#sec-EncryptionMethod>. The following shows the XML Encryption 1.1 addition for the MGF type: Schema Definition: <element name="MGF" type="xenc11:MGFType"/> <complexType name="MGFType"> <complexContent> <restriction base="xenc11:AlgorithmIdentifierType"> <attribute name="Algorithm" type="anyURI" use="required" /> </restriction> </complexContent> </complexType> ]] instead of the original that was less clear: [[ Schema Definition: <!-- use these element types as children of EncryptionMethod when used with RSA-OAEP --> <element name="OAEPparams" minOccurs="0" type="base64Binary"/> <element ref="ds:DigestMethod" minOccurs="0"/> <element name="MGF" type="xenc11:MGFType"/> <complexType name="MGFType"> <complexContent> <restriction base="xenc11:AlgorithmIdentifierType"> <attribute name="Algorithm" type="anyURI" use="required" /> </restriction> </complexContent> </complexType> ]] |
yes |