W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org > July 2005

Re: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 958,

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:58:20 +0200
To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <42ed6c0e.6248390@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Martin Chapman wrote:
>The following WS-Choreo last call issues that you raised have been
>resolved as follows. Please confirm you agree with the resolutions asap.
>All editorial changes can be found in the latest editorial draft:
>http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/edcopies/cdl/cdl.html

>Issue 958: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=958
>Issue 961: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=961
>Issue 962: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=962
>Issue 965: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=965
>Issue 969: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=969
>Issue 970: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=970
>Issue 972: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=972

Sounds good, thanks.

>Issue 963: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=963

I don't really see a difference in style?

>Issue 968: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=968

Note that http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype ietf-types
review is required for these types to be registered. Normally this would
be done along with the last call announcement, I am not sure whether
there is a process for doing it later, W3C's IETF Liaisons Dan Connolly
and Philippe Le Hégaret might be able to provide guidance here.

I am not satisfied by the current registration template, there should
probably be a "." after "This document", the "Person and email address
to contact for further information" should probably not be Yves but a
more generic address (like web-human@) or a mailing list, and the
"Security considerations" are inadequate.

I would expect the security considerations section to conform to
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3552.txt section 5 and discuss e.g. whether
application/cdl+xml documents may have a http://w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/
digital signature and how application/cdl+xml implementations that do
not support XML DSig behave when processing a document (e.g., would the
signature be ignored, would the implementation refuse to process the
document, etc.) Simply saying that CDL users don't have to consider any
security issue but those that apply to all XML formats is probably worse
than having no security considerations section at all.

regards,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2005 05:58:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:10 GMT