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

RE: Generic Hybrid Ciphers comments

From: Magnus Nystrom <mnystrom@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 03:50:06 +0000
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D744D68428430B4F9C81DE8A4D59506807112C5A@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Frederick, thanks for your review.

On 4/27, Frederick wrote:

> Comments on latest Generic Hybrid Ciphers editors draft
> 
> Substantive:
> 
> (1) The document shortname is "xmlsec-generic-hybrid" and the namespace is
> "http://www.w3.org/2009/xmlsec-gh#"
> 
> Should the shortname match the namespace  (e.g. "xmlsec-generic- hybrid" vs
> "xmlsec-gh") ?

I don't know what the best practice is, but maybe it would be better to use (note the "c") "xmlsec-ghc" consistently?

> (2) Should the namespace include 2009 or 2010 as the year

I have no opinion on this.

> (3) Do we need a note regarding the status of ECIES-KEM, currently mandatory,
> given the unclear ECC IPR status?

 Is it needed given that the whole specification is OPTIONAL (last sentence in Section 1.1)?

> Editorial
> 
> (1) Introduction
> 
> Change " usage of these algorithms in XML-based security applications"
> to " usage of these algorithms in conjunction with XML Security"

Yes, or perhaps even: "use of these algorithms in conjunction with XML Security"

> (2) Section 2, Versions ...
> 
> Replace "This namespace is also used as the prefix for identifiers defined by this
> specification."
> 
> with
> 
> "The use of the gh prefix in this document is an editorial convention
> - other prefix values could be associated with the namespace."

Actually, I suggest just removing this sentence. It does not seem necessary.

> (3) Section 4.2
> 
> s/combines/combine/
> 
> (4) Section 4.3
> 
> s/in, e.g., /in/
> 
> (5) Section 6, Examples
> 
> Mark this section as informative.
> 
> (6) Section 10 Schema
> 
> Mark example as informative.

Why? It is not marked as informative in, for example, XML Encryption 1.1?

Best,
-- Magnus
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 03:51:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 May 2010 03:51:40 GMT