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

RE: XML Signature 2.0 Strawman Proposal

From: Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:19:13 -0500
To: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Cc: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6B94CEFB.E4CD8073-ON8525738D.005EA247-8525738D.005F0FFA@us.ibm.com>

> Namespace-specific canonicalization 
> does NOT mean every namespace must have its own canonicalization 
> algorithm, just that the canonicalization algorithm can be set on a 
> per-namespace basis.

Yes, I know, and what I said is correct -- a generic signature processor 
has to know about the namespace of everything it might see, even if it's 
only a default case that says 'nothing special.'

I am also concerned about combinations; assume a b and c are bound to 
three different URI's
        <a:foo b:foo='somevalue     '>

Which c14n rule applies, and where?

The concept turns a signature from being about bytes, to being about 
application semantics.


STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer
WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 17:19:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:43 UTC