I thought in a canonical XER encoding things could be done one way and only
one way. Doesn't introducing these attributes violate the canonical rules?
Regards,
Ed Day
Principal Engineer
Objective Systems, Inc.
Tel: +1 (484) 875-3020
Fax: +1 (484) 875-2913
Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
mailto:
http://www.obj-sys.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Griffin" <>
To: "xcbf" <>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:02 AM
Subject: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes
> I proposed on 8/6 that the following XML markup be used
> in XCBF.
>
> <version> ........................ </version>
> <digestAlgorithms> ............... </digestAlgorithms>
> <encapContentInfo> ............... </encapContentInfo>
> <certificates format='base64'> ... </certificates>
> <crls format='base64'> ........... </crls>
> <signerInfos> .................... </signerInfos>
>
> The signature component of the SIGNATURE parameterized
> type identifies a value of type BIT STRING. These bits
> are not used as bit flags, and signatures tend to be in
> the thousands of bits in length and can more easily and
> compactly be represented as OCTET STRINGs. I propose that
> the following XML markup be used for these values:
>
> <signature format='hex'> ... </signature>
>
> So far, I have received no comments. Unless I hear comments
> that use of these attributes is unacceptable, I will include
> them in the next release of the XCBF document.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
