- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:56:13 +0100
- To: Brian LaMacchia <bal@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Magnus Nyström <magnus@rsa.com>, Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
On 24 Feb 2009, at 11:51, Brian LaMacchia wrote: > Continuing my curmudgeonly mood this morning :-), while I think a > restructuring like Magnus has proposed has merit, I don't see a > reason to rush this change into the FPWD. Better that we think > through the structure we want & associated schema first. For > example, I think we will need default "false" values on the > Booleans. Also, does it really make sense to validate the curve was > generated randomly but not the base point (curveRandom=true, > pointRandom=false)? And I'm not sure whether it's better for > HashAlgorithm to be an attribute or element. > > So, I think we should take this as a work item but not aim to change > the FPWD at the last moment. Well, you argued before that the worst thing at all would be to have the scheme for EC points up in the air (or to have two schemes) -- I, for one, don't have a problem pushing the FPWD with what's in there with a big fat editor's note that this part of the spec is going to change.
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 10:56:25 UTC