Re: [office] Re: encryption

[Ming Fei Jia <jiamingf@cn.ibm.com>]

In the proposal:
The defined value for the "algorithm" attribute is 3 options:
• The Blowfish algorithm in CFB mode.
• An IRI defined in §5.2 or §5.3 of [xmlenc-core]: The algorithm specified in §5.2 or §5.3 of [xmlenc-core] for this IRI.
• An IRI specifying an implementation defined algorithm.
----------------
Actually I think the proposal means ODF has no restriction for encryption algorithm and ODF encryption algorithm could be anything. Then, does the standard have meaning here? Of course, that is OK if there is some exception that everyone believes:
(1)Encryption algorithm does not have any interoperability issue in reality;
(2)Encryption algorithm will have no interoperability issue in the future
(3)Implementation defined algorithm is not conforming to ODF
(4)Standard here can not solve problems at all even the issues are there.
or anything else?

We could have some trade-off for the real complexity, but I suggest to be careful to evaluate this extending. thanks a lot.

Best Regards,

Mingfei Jia(贾明飞)
IBM Lotus Symphony Development
IBM China Software Development LAB, Beijing
Tel: 86-10-82452493 Fax: 86-10-82452887
NOTES:Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM E-mail: jiamingf@cn.ibm.com
Address: No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, P.R.China

Bob Jolliffe ---2009-08-31 22:46:31---In addition - I don't know the answer to this, but in the interest of uniformity, is there also an IRI which can used to indica

From:	Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>
To:	office@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	2009-08-31 22:46
Subject:	[office] Re: encryption

---

In addition - I don't know the answer to this, but in the interest of uniformity, is there also an IRI which can used to indicate blowfish?  Then we are clear the value of the attribute is an IRI.

2009/8/31 Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>

what I was trying to say on the call is that we now have 3 options for each algorithm, including a catchall "implementation defined" IRI.  I would prefer to see this last option allowed but not recommended.

Regards
Bob