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

Re: Syntax for C14N2.0 profiles

From: Meiko Jensen <Meiko.Jensen@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Date: 29 Jun 2010 12:19:00 +0200
Message-ID: <4C29C894.5080306@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
To: "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Cc: "'Pratik Datta'" <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>

>> Or should we just define profiles as a combination of parameters that need
>> to be supported by implementation, but there would be no indication in the
>> syntax that a particular profile is being used.
> That would be my preference. I think this is a conformance issue, not an
> implementation issue.
I agree, however, this implies that we might not even need the named
parameter sets at all. It should be sufficient to just mark every
parameter whether it is mandatory to be supported or not. However, this
also reduces the "favorite" configuration---in the sense of being
recommended by the WG---to the parameter's default values, hence this
might result in all other configurations not being used very much.
>> I prefer the later. The problem with the first approach is that profiles
>> also need parameters - i.e. a
>> exclusive-canonical-xml-1.0-nocomments" would need the
>> InclusiveNamespacePrefixList as parameters. This would get very confusing.
> It would be a mess.


Dipl.-Inf. Meiko Jensen
Chair for Network and Data Security 
Horst Görtz Institute for IT-Security 
Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
Universitätsstr. 150, Geb. IC 4/150
D-44780 Bochum, Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 234 / 32-26796
Telefax: +49 (0) 234 / 32-14347
http:// www.nds.rub.de
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:19:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:14 UTC