Re: [office] Re: encryption

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

2009/9/1 Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>:
> Thanks Ming Fei.  You summarized my concerns much better than I ..

> By opening up the third option (implementation defined algorithms) we
> maximize the choice but, as Ming Fei says, we risk the standard having no
> meaning or relevance regarding encryption.


Implementation defined is the usual cop-out for 'not standardised'.

Yet another interop no no?

So to Robs question
3) Do we allow implementation-defined algorithms beyond those which we
have assigned identifiers to?

Definite no.

Try and develop a standard?


regards



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