RE: [dss] Groups - dss-requirements-1.0-draft-02.doc uploaded

["jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

That is why I believe signing the original xml PLUS the hash of the xslt stylesheet that was actually applied is an option to consider. 

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date:  Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:45:49 -0500 (EST)

>> Huh.  Well, if the canonicalization transform isn't really canonicalizing,
>> then I'd say the transform needs to be fixed, or a better one defined or
>> something.
>
>Hunh?  It's *xml canonicalization* not "HTML canonicalization."  We'd
>be foolish to waste time defining HTML canonicalization.
>
>It's irrefutable:  Any XSLT that has "<xsl:output method='html'/>"
>cannot have a signature that covers the output.
>
>> If they *don't* work in the exact same way, modulo canonicalization, then
>> there's room for the requestor to say, "oh, I didn't mean to sign *THAT*,
>> my XSLT processor produced something slightly different".
>
>But if the source inputs are signed, then in case of conflict you can
>always go back to the source and see what was really there.  That's
>better than having unsignable output.
>
>>   In addition to the fact that not all
>> transforms will even *BE* signable
>
>Hunh?  How so?  Are you saying the stylesheet is private?
>        /r$
>
>