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."


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

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