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: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:39:38 -0500
Cc: ext Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "'Sean Mullan'" <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F69B3B5F-0154-4648-A4AE-9D27FA0EB6AD@nokia.com>
To: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Thomas and I talked about this, how about replacing "Use of the  
MgmtData element is deprecated." with "Support of the MgmtData element  
in implementations is optional. The element SHOULD NOT be used."

http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm#sec-MgmtData

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> I believe it means, not to be used. I could not find a definition in
> the W3 process document.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:00 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:
>
>> Sean Mullan wrote on 2009-12-08:
>>> 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.
>>
>> As a suggestion, I believe that MgmtData is OPTIONAL to support now,
>> but
>> that the intent of the deprecation is to signal deployers and
>> profilers that
>> relying on it for new scenarios is ill-advised?
>>
>> -- Scott
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 14:40:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 December 2009 14:40:34 GMT