W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Responses to C14N request

From: Glenn Marcy <gmarcy@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:40:18 -0500
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE58EDC42.84613CD4-ON852570F8.005FE44A-852570F8.0061143A@us.ibm.com>
The following is a summary of the responses to the message [1] posted to 
the
IETF/W3C XML Digital Signature Working Group asking for suggestions for 
how
we might minimize disruptions introduced by a new version of Canonical 
XML.

Boyer responded [2] with the suggestion to publish an errata to Canonical 
XML
instead of a new revision.  The main advantage seems to be in avoiding the
introduction of a new algoritm identifier in the XML-Signature 
specification.

Kahan responded [3] to Boyer that he felt that it was safer to introduce a
new algorithm identifier, and that a Canonical XML 1.1 was therefore more
appropriate.

Boyer responded [4] to Kahan with a more detailed argument for producing 
an
erratum instead of a 1.1 revision.

Salz also responded [5] to Kahan supporting his position that producing a
1.1 revision was safer.

Reagle responded [6] to Boyer [4] agreeing in spirit, but accepting that
in this case while it might be messier to introduce a 1.1 revision it is
the correct choice in this situation.

Boyer responded [7] to Reagle with additional arguments for producing an
erratum instead of a 1.1 revision.

Salz responded [8] to Boyer that they agree to disagree and that a 1.1
revision will make interop problems easier to detect and resolve.

Boyer responded [9] to Salz with additional rationale for producing an
erratum instead of a 1.1 revision.

Salz responded [10] to Boyer that he still feels strongly that an errata
is the wrong choice.


We have previously discussed this suggestion in the Core WG and reached a
concensus that we were chartered to produce a Canonical XML 1.1 and not an
erratum [11].


[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0019.html
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0020.html
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0021.html
[4] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0022.html
[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0023.html
[6] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0024.html
[7] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0000.html
[8] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0001.html
[9] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0002.html
[10] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0003.html
[11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0004.html

Regards,

Glenn
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 17:40:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT