[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Issue 321, proposed resolution
Frederick, We believe that issue 321 has been adequately addressed in draft 9. Dana S. Kaufman VP of Product Management Forum Systems, Inc. Tel: (781) 788-4232 E-Mail: dkaufman@forumsys.com Visit http://www.forumsys.com -----Original Message----- From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:34 AM To: Dana Kaufman Cc: wss@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Issue 321, proposed resolution Dana and SwA/MIME experts: Issue 321: clarity of the cipher text encoding for attachments Draft 9 of the SwA profile [1] has changes intended to address and close this issue, using approach #3 in the mail below. The cipherdata is explicitly indicated to be base64 encoded. Changes are at lines 376, 382, 413, 432, 497 in the pdf diff. The earlier text treated the cipher data as binary octet stream, relying on Content-Transfer-Encoding and attempting to reduce processing steps for encoding - an alternative resolution might be to make that more explicit and obvious in the wording. Can you please review draft 9 and indicate whether the changes are appropriate (base64 encoding), whether instead a binary octet stream should be specified, and whether use of Content-Transfer-Encoding requires discussion. (Specific text proposals would be helpful.) I would like to be sure I correctly captured the intent of earlier feedback and close this issue properly. Thanks Regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/download.php/9038/wss-s wa-profile-1.0-draft-09-diff.pdf -----Original Message----- From: ext Dana Kaufman [mailto:dkaufman@forumsys.com] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 3:39 PM To: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-TP/Boston); wss@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Comment on wss-swa-profile 1.0 draft .8 Here is some feedback based on draft .8: It is not clear as to how to interpret/transform the encrypted contents of the attachment. There are three incompatible possibilities that different implementers might conclude from the specification: 1) Possibly the encoding of the encrypted data is inferred from the Content-Transfer-Encoding, i.e. binary means raw bytes and base64 means base64 encoded bytes. 2) The encoding of the encrypted data is inferred from the SwA transform specified in the specification. The specification does not seem to indicate that the SwA transform does base64 decoding, but the example implies that it does. 3) The encoding is explicitly specified though transforms in the CipherReference, as is the norm in XML Encryption. base64 decoding would be done with an explicit transform following the SwA transform. Look like the approach to use needs to be clarified. Dana S. Kaufman VP of Product Management Forum Systems, Inc. Tel: (781) 788-4232 E-Mail: dkaufman@forumsys.com Visit http://www.forumsys.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]