W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > April 2010

RE: ACTION-519: review c14n 2.0 draft

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:25:24 -0400
To: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005501cadb15$27c0bfa0$77423ee0$@2@osu.edu>
A small supplement to my review that I forgot to mention...

We orginally had a c14n option for whether the signature was enveloped or
not, which we agreed to remove because it seemed to be implicit. In fact, it
probably can't go into c14n anyway because that's nominally independent of
the signing process anyway.

What I do think we're missing, probably in the Signature spec under the
Selection portion, rather than this spec, is an explicit statement that the
Signature element containing the CanonicalizationMethod element that's being
processed is an implicit "Exclusion" provided to the c14n 2.0 step.

That works "automatically" since if the Signature isn't enveloped, it won't
affect processing and if it is, it gets properly excluded.

-- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 14:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:13 UTC