W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > February 2011

Re: DSIG v1.1 Reference Review

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:47:47 +0000
To: <cemartin@mitre.org>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7787B780-EE1C-40C8-AEF5-9E83888F31BE@nokia.com>

I suggest we leave the named references and they are rather than shifting to RFC#, as sometimes RFC#s change as references are obsoleted. Magnus did raise the same comment.

I'd argue it is a style issue, and I don't recommend  making such a broad change to all the documents at the last minute.

It looks like we need fixes for the last two you mention, o and p. What should we do about X509v3 reference, do others agree with this change?

thanks for doing this

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:38 AM, ext Martin, Cynthia E. wrote:

> Fredrick
> My comments for the DSIG v1.1 references are below.  We can discuss at
> todays meeting if necessary.  
> Cynthia
> a.	The reference for RFC 3986 is listed as URI rather than the RFC
> number, as with some of the other RFC references. This is not wrong, just
> inconsistent. I recommend using the RFC number 
> b.	The reference for RFC 2141 is listed as URN. Same as above.
> c.	The reference for RFC 2104 is listed as HMAC. Same as above.
> d.	The reference for RFC 2616 is listed as HTTP11. Same as above.
> e.	Reference [XPTR-XPOINTER] is listed as January 2001, but the
> document says 11 September 2001.
> f.	The reference for RFC 3061 is listed as URN-OID. Same as above.
> g.	The reference for RFC 6090 is listed as ECC-ALGS. Same as above.
> h.	The reference for RFC 4514 is listed as LDAP-DN. Same as above.
> i.	The reference [X509V3] does not list a web site. The site to buy the
> document is
> http://webstore.iec.ch/servlet/GetPreview?id=40633&path=info_isoiec10021-8%7
> Bed2.0%7Den.pdf; however, the latest version is 2008, not the 1999 version
> listed in the reference.
> j.	The reference for RFC 2560 is listed as OCSP. Same as above.
> k.	RFC 1321, MD-5, is not listed in the references.
> l.	The reference for RFC 3629 is listed as UTF-8. Same as above
> m.	The reference for RFC 2781 is listed as UFT-16. Same as above. In
> addition, it is listed under informational references, while UTF-8 is
> normative. Both appear in the same sentence.
> n.	The reference for RFC 4086 is listed as RANDOM. Same as above.
> o.	RFC 4949 uses different web link from all other RFC's:
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4949.html as opposed to
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4949.txt. 
> p.	The reference [RELAXNG-SCHEMA] lists the index of ISO documents
> rather than the link for the document:
> http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c052348_ISO_IEC_197
> 57-2_2008(E).zip
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 13:48:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:15 UTC