Re: [office] Re: encryption

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2009/9/2 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
<Michael.Brauer@sun.com>:

> Yes, this is a valid point. In addition, there may be situations where
> any of the algorithms defined by the W3C or any set of algorithms we may
> define ourselves does not include an algorithm that is mandated by a
> particular organization or government that wishes to use ODF. So, also
> from that perspective, it seems to be reasonable to me that, if we allow
> additional algorithms, that we are not again restricting them to a
> particular set.

I.e. not defining a standard.


> Regarding implementation defined IRIs, we have already a requirement
> that conforming implementations have to document the implementation
> defined values they are using. This includes the IRIs that denote
> algorithms.

Which may be just as hard as not using a standard, e.g.
if there are security aspects to disclosing the algorithm?



>> 3) Do we allow implementation-defined algorithms beyond those which we
>> have assigned identifiers to?
>
> I would recommend that for the reasons mentioned above.

Another nail in the ODF coffin Michael?








-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk