W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: DigSig feedback

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:36:44 -0400
Message-Id: <D5B41AFF-D086-4D6C-BDC8-AF4987398E50@nokia.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: ext Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, Simon Hawkins <Simon.Hawkins@vodafone.com>
On May 5, 2010, at 9:40 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:

> Our only other comment on the specification is related to the new  
> requirement for the validator to support C14N11:
>
> "A validator  MUST support [C14N11] to process a ds:Reference that  
> specifies [C14N11] as a canonicalization method."
>
> If we remember the previous discussions, there was a move to [XML- 
> exc-C14N] because of concerns over the level of support for  
> [C14N11]. Making support for this mandatory may cause us some  
> issues in the short term. Can you explain why this requirement has  
> been added?

The head of the discussion threads related to the group's decision to  
move from C14N 1.0 to 1.1 are:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/ 
0028.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/ 
0054.html

In those threads you'll find the rationale for making C14N 1.1  
mandatory.

In practice, I suspect interoperable implementations will need to  
support both C14N 1.0 and 1.1 (e.g. to assure being able to handle  
signed widgets based on the July-2009 Candidate and C14N 1.0).

-Art Barstow
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 14:37:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT