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: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:13:40 -0500
To: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-id: <4B265624.20609@sun.com>
This is fine with me, though I think an additional sentence explaining 
why it should no longer be used would be useful.

--Sean

Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> 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 15:14:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 December 2009 15:14:21 GMT