W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Updated XML Signature 1.1 editors draft for MgmtData, updated 2nd edition redline

From: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:55:03 -0500
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-id: <4B1E92F7.3020102@sun.com>
I think we should define what the term "deprecated" means. How should 
implementations treat MgmtData? Should they ignore it, or treat it as an 
error? Or is it optional for implementations to support it? If not 
clear, this could be interpreted by implementations differently.

BTW, I'm not aware of any usage of MgmtData, so this is more a question 
as to what deprecated means.


Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> I have completed the update to XML Signature 1.1 agreed today, to the 
> MgmtData section and to add a new section, please review:
> MgmtData section
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm#sec-MgmtData 
> new "Conveying Key Information" section
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm#sec-keyconvenance 
> Please also review the title page, status of the document, references 
> and completeness of the various sections.
> I have updated the redline from the 2nd Edition:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview_diff.htm
> This should complete ACTION-459 (mgmtdata changes)  and ACTION-460 (2nd 
> edition redline)
> regards, Frederick
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:55:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:12 UTC