RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD
David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> Fri, 15 October 1999 15:52 UTC
Received: from one.eListX.com (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA15517 for <trade-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:52:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from one.elistx.com by one.eListX.com id aa05194; 15 Oct 99 11:26 EDT
Received: from mail.commerceone.com by one.eListX.com id aa05182; 15 Oct 99 11:25 EDT
Received: by GENERALSERVER3 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <4S6KR9PH>; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:23:38 -0700
Message-ID: <123B7EB05559D311B0D900A0C9EA3D7604F3B1@NEPTUNE>
From: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
To: "'Smith, Chris '" <CHRIS.SMITH@royalbank.com>, "'hiroya@sdl.hitachi.co.jp'" <hiroya@sdl.hitachi.co.jp>
Cc: "IETF Trade (E-mail)" <ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com>, "'kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp'" <kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp>, "'kent@differential.com'" <kent@differential.com>
Subject: RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:22:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: ietf-trade-owner@lists.eListX.com
Precedence: bulk
X-elistx: ietf-trade
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Chris The reasons are historical to do with the way the digital signatues for IOPT were developed. Firstly the IOTP specification with its own digital signature specification as part of the spec. Later, it was realised that the digital signature part should be removed and made a separate standard. At the same time as this was going on the idea of a "Packaged Content" element was being developed in the main IOTP specification with a default of "NONE" Then around a year ago it was agreed to base the IOTP digital signature specification on the work being done by Richard Brown of Globeset as part of the W3C/IETF digital signature work. As IOTP couldn't wait for the IETF/W3C group to finish it work we took an early version of Richard Brown's specification, and built the IOTP dsig from that. However, this specification had defined "value" differently from the way it was done in IOTP with a default of "base64". Hence the difference. David -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Chris [mailto:CHRIS.SMITH@ROYALBANK.COM] Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 7:32 AM To: David Burdett; 'hiroya@sdl.hitachi.co.jp' Cc: IETF Trade (E-mail); 'kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp'; 'kent@differential.com' Subject: RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD Interesting. The following is a rather subtle point, easily missed when viewing the DTD (and NOT actually an error), but... IOTP PackagedContent has <!ELEMENT PackagedContent (#PCDATA) > <!ATTLIST PackagedContent Name CDATA #IMPLIED Content NMTOKEN "PCDATA" Transform (NONE|BASE64) "NONE" > while IOTP,DSIG has (corrected with removing the #IMPLIED) <!ELEMENT Value (#PCDATA) > <!ATTLIST Value ID ID #IMPLIED encoding (base64|none) 'base64' > Is there a specific reason that the attributes "encoding" and "Transform" don't agree on parameter content and the default value of the parameter, even though they are almost exactly the same thing? Also, I can live with 'encoding' but this is risking confusion with 'encoding' as it refers to character sets like ISO-8859-1 (and as used on the <?xml ...> XML declaration). I realize that IOTP and DSIG are being worked on independently, but could we have them be a little less independent? ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Smith +1.416.348.6090 Royal Bank chris.smith@royalbank.com > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burdett [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] > Sent: October 14, 1999 08:55 PM > To: 'hiroya@sdl.hitachi.co.jp' > Cc: IETF Trade (E-mail); 'kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp'; > 'kent@differential.com' > Subject: RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD > > > Masaaki > > I accept that there is a mistake in the IOTP DTD, however > this part of the IOTP DTD was copied **directly** from the > the IOTP dsig spec at > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0 > -dsig-03.txt > > which contains the same error. The only changes made when > copying were the removal of some blank lines and page headers > and footers. > > The reason for copying in the IOTP dsig DTD is to avoid > having to use namespaces in IOTP. > > So really what I think we should do is: > 1. Fix the DTD in the IOTP dsig spec (Yoshiaki ?) and then > 2. Fix the DTD in the IOTP spec. > > Regards > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Masaaki Hiroya [mailto:hiroya@sdl.hitachi.co.jp] > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 3:33 AM > To: David Burdett > Cc: hiroya@sdl.hitachi.co.jp > Subject: Bug in IOTP's DTD > > > > David > > There is a bug in ietf.org/draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-protocol-06. > > > <!ELEMENT Value ( #PCDATA ) > > > <!ATTLIST Value > > ID ID #IMPLIED > > encoding (base64|none) #IMPLIED 'base64' > > > I think #IMPLIED in the "encoding" attribute should be removed. > > Draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-dsig-03.txt defines the Value > element as follows: > > > <!ELEMENT Value ( #PCDATA ) > > > <!ATTLIST Value > > ID ID #IMPLIED > > encoding (base64|none) 'base64' > > Please correct the DTD in iotp-v1.0-protocol-06. > > Masaaki > > ----- > Masaaki Hiroya > Systems Development Laboratory > Hitachi, Ltd. > tel: +81-44-549-1531 > fax: +81-44-549-1640 > email: hiroya@sdl.hitachi.co.jp > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message addressed to: ietf-trade@lists.elistx.com Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/ To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the body to: ietf-trade-request@lists.elistx.com
- RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD David Burdett
- RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD Smith, Chris
- RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD Yoshiaki KAWATSURA
- RE: Bug in IOTP's DTD David Burdett