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 14:03:20 -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: <4B268BF8.6020708@sun.com>
Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> How about this Proposal:
> 
> Replace "Use of the MgmtData element is deprecated."
> 
>  with
> 
> "Support of the MgmtData element in implementations is optional. The 
> element SHOULD NOT be used.
> Interoperable use of MgmtData is not defined - interoperable 
> alternatives are described in the next section. "

I would retain some of the original text for better context/history, 
otherwise it isn't clear why it has been deprecated unless you go back 
and look at the old specs. I suggest:

The MgmtData element within KeyInfo is a string value used to convey 
in-band key distribution or agreement data. However, use of this element 
is NOT RECOMMENDED and SHOULD NOT be used.

Section 4.5.8 describes new KeyInfo types for conveying key information.

--Sean
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:13 AM, ext Sean Mullan wrote:
> 
>> 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 sup
> 
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 19:03:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 December 2009 19:03:57 GMT