W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: References in XML Signature PER

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:13:54 -0400
Message-Id: <98BACF4B-626B-464A-9DB3-0D11FF8CBF70@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, innovimax+w3c@gmail.com
To: XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>

I  believe updating an  XML 1.0, Second Edition [1] reference to XML  
1.0 Fourth Edition [2] in XML Signature, Second Edition PER [3] may  
be useful and appropriate.

(1) It appears that the Fourth Edition is mostly editorial changes  
for clarity, as well as incorporation of errata [4]. One of these  
errata corresponds to changes in XML Signature Second Edition, an  
update of the URI reference from RFC 2732 to RFC 3986.
"This fourth edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to  
readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated  
errata (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata) to the  
Third Edition of XML 1.0, dated 4 February 2004. In addition, the  
markup introduced in the third edition, to clarify when prescriptive  
keywords are used in the formal sense defined in [IETF RFC 2119], has  
been modified to better match the intent of [IETF RFC 2119]"

(2) Likewise XML 1.0 Third edition incorporates editorial changes for  
clarity and incorporation of errata [5].

"This third edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to  
readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated  
errata (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata) to the  
Second Edition of XML 1.0, dated 6 October 2000. In addition, markup  
has been introduced on a significant portion of the prescriptions of  
the specification, clarifying when prescriptive keywords such as  
must, should and may are used in the formal sense defined in [IETF  
RFC 2119]"

Do members of this group, in particular those involved with the XML  
Core WG, believe it would be appropriate to update the XML 1.0  
reference in XML Signature, Second Edition to the Fourth Edition of  
XML, and would doing so be viewed as editorial or a more substantive  
change?

Would such a change have an impact on implementors?

It may be that XML Signature is mostly orthogonal to those changes,  
in particular since the XML Fourth edition does not represent a new  
version of XML,  and thus this could be treated as editorial

(3) A similar issue may also apply to Namespaces  in XML 1.0 [6]  
which have been updated to Namespaces  in XML 1.0, Second Edition  
[7], where the errata includes primarily  the deprecation of relative  
URIs in namespace declarations [8]. What are thoughts on updating  
this reference, treating it as editorial?

It seems these changes are editorial in nature. Do you have insights  
or views on this?

I'm not sure I understand that the unicode reference needs updating,  
any thoughts on that reference?

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmldsig-core-20080326/

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xml-20060614/

[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/

[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/

[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

[8] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#errata10

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> we've received one comment about XML Signature PER which requests a
> review of the references, specifically XML 2nd Edition and Unicode.
>
> Forwarded with permission.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  +33-4-89063488
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2008-04-06 13:10:01 +0000, WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax 
> +w3c@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: "WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax+w3c@gmail.com"
>> 	<webmaster@w3.org>
>> To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com,
>> 	team-security-activity-proposal-review@w3.org
>> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:10:01 +0000
>> Subject: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: XML Signature Syntax and
>> 	Processing  (Second Edition)?? is W3C Proposed Recommendation'
>> Reply-To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com
>> List-Id: <team-security-activity-proposal-review.w3.org>
>> X-Spam-Level:
>> Archived-At:
>> 	<http://www.w3.org/mid/wbs-f743d3cf28a5f52bede4713530dde6b5@cgi.w3.o
>> 	rg>
>> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6
>>
>>
>>
>> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call  
>> for Review:
>> XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)
>>  is W3C Proposed Recommendation' (Advisory Committee) for  
>> INNOVIMAX by
>> Mohamed ZERGAOUI.
>>
>> Regarding the "XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)"
>> specification, the reviewer  suggests changes, and only supports
>> publication as a Recommendation if the changes are adopted.
>>
>>
>> Additional comments about the specification:
>>    The references are almost all out of synch and may introduce  
>> burden
>> because of misinterpretation, mainly due to references to old Unicode
>> publication directly and to XML second edition.
>>
>> I ask that all reference should be carefully weighted to not  
>> introduce
>> more problems than solutions
>>
>>
>> The reviewer's organization:
>>    - produces products addressed by this specification
>>
>> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xmlsigper2008/ until 2008-04-30.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>
>>  The Automatic WBS Mailer
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 00:16:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 April 2008 00:16:46 GMT