W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Get test case for E01 / DName Issues

From: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:05:13 -0400
To: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Message-id: <466EFC79.2070204@sun.com>

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2007-05-30 13:30:24 -0400, Sean Mullan wrote:
> 
>>> I've re-reviewed the material and think I agree with Thomas. However, I do
>>> have a suggested rewrite of the text:
>>> <section>
>>> <heading>DName Encoding</heading>
>>> <p>Except for DName AttributeValues that have a string representation,
>>> DNames (X509IssuerSerial,X509SubjectName, and KeyName if appropriate) 
>>> should
>>> be encoded in accordance with RFC2253 [LDAP-DN]. DName AttributeValues that
>>> have a string representation should be encoded in accordance with RFC2253
>>> [LDAP-DN] with the following exceptions:</p>
>>> <ul>
>>> <li>Escape any trailing white space by replacing "\ " with "\20".</li>
>>> <li>Escape all occurrences of ASCII control characters (Unicode range \x00 
>>> -
>>> \x1f) by replacing them with "\" followed by a two digit hex number showing
>>> its Unicode number.</li>
>>> </ul>
>>> </section>
>>> <<<
>>> In the above, I have removed the discussion of XML escaping and such -- 
>>> that
>>> to me is just the fundamentals of XML. Personally, I would recommend
>>> applications use CDATA sections around DNames and MgmtData.
> 
> Incidentally, that's materially the same proposal that I had
> forgotten and reproduced today... Oops.
> 
>> But wouldn't that require a change to the DTD, since DN Strings are 
>> currently specified as PCDATA?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand why that leads to a DTD change?

Ed answered this to my satisfaction in a previous message:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0011.html

--Sean
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 20:05:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:00 GMT