W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

[widgets] Dig Sig review in prep for LC

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:01:42 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670904290101p6955fb9eg32fae0ad21ed60f6@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Frederick,
Some tiny editorial changes....

I think we should add the following sub-section to the Status of This Document:

[[
<h3 class="no-num no-toc">Note to Last Call Reviewers</h3>
<p><em>This section is non-normative.</em></p>
<p>The editors of this specification respond rapidly to all feedback
and continuously make corrections to this document. Unless you are
reading this document on the date of publication, <strong
class="redNote">it is extremely  likely that this document has been
superseded</strong>. Instead of reviewing this published draft, please
review the <a href="http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/">latest
editor's draft</a> and make sure to cite the date of that draft in the
feedback sent to the Web Apps Working Group's public mailing list <a
href=
"mailto:public-webapps@w3.org">public-Webapps@w3.org</a>. </p>
<p>Please also be sure to check the mailing list <a href=
"http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/">archive</a> to
see if any issues uncovered have already been addressed. To help with
cataloging issues, prefix emails to the mailing list with the string
<samp>[widgets]</samp>. Any and all feedback is welcomed.</p>
 ]]


Section 1.1
Namespace prefix "wsig:" > "wsig"

Section 1.3
"to the term definition" > "to where the term is defined".

2.0
"are addressed in the Widgets 1.0 Requirements [Widgets Requirements] document."
 ->
are addressed in the Widgets 1.0 Requirements document [Widgets Requirements].

3.0
"security critical mechanism"
Can we include a concrete example of such a thing? I'm not sure what a
security critical mechanism is.

4.0
Step 6
"Numerical order is" -> "<dfn>Numerical order</dfn> is"

The numerical order is really relevant to processing. I think we
should move this paragraph and proceeding paragraph to the top of
section 4.0. Their importance is kind of lost where they are right
now.

5.1
"profile of XML Signature [XMLDSIG11] defined by this specification."
->
"profile of  [XMLDSIG11] defined by this specification."


"contain a dsp:Profile signature properties element compliant with XML
Signature Properties [XMLDSIG-Properties] and this specification."
->
"contain a dsp:Profile element compliant with the [XMLDSIG-Properties]
specification and this specification."

 5.5
"The dsp:Identifier signature property is intended to be used to
uniquely identify the signature to enable signature management. "

Who is the subject in this sentence? I.e., used by who? publishers?
the UA? users? I think that needs to be made clear.

"value is unique for the widgets that they sign."
>
"value is unique for the widget packages that they sign."


6.1
"Signatures generated using key lengths of less than 2048 bits SHOULD
NOT be used unless the life time of the signature is less than one
year."

Again, it is not clear to me who "SHOULD NOT be used" is directed at?
should not be used by the UA?

Kind regards,
Marcos
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 08:02:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT