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

2.0 Issues - status?

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:49:14 +0100
To: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <D0E2E77D-0AE3-4626-8237-855F72A0257A@nokia.com>
Which of the following 2.0 issues can be closed?  For those that are open, if you have an action associated with any of the issues can you please update the issue with that associated action ?

I'd like to review the status of these issues on tomorrow's call.


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security WG


ISSUE-86			Document performance criterial and benchmarks	2009-01-14	XML Signature 2.0	0

ISSUE-91			ECC can't be REQUIRED	2009-01-26	XML Security - General	0

ISSUE-122			Explain why peformance improvements and rationale, relationship to earlier work	2009-05-12	XML Signature 2.0	0

ISSUE-132			Keep 2.0 xenc transform feature in sync with signature 2.0	2009-06-02	XML Signature 2.0	0

ISSUE-140			Clarify how XPath is interpreted relative to entire document and ds:Reference	2009-09-08	XML Signature 2.0	0

ISSUE-156			Threat for signature from use of namespace prefixes with corresponding unsigned namespace declarations leading to wrapping like attacks	2009-11-17	XML Signature 2.0	0

ISSUE-159			Address/document potential security issues due to mismatch of security and application processing, including wrapping attacks

ISSUE-198			How to determine if arbitrary text content contains prefixes? Might need to do a lot of searching because text content can be large	2010-04-27	Canonical XML Version 2.0	0

ISSUE-202			How to define parameter sets in document, vs conformance criteria	2010-05-11		0

ISSUE-204			Integrated recognition of QName content	2010-05-25	Canonical XML Version 2.0	0

ISSUE-206			For c14n20 profile - clarify that conformance implies support, but also changes to xml or what must be explicitly specified

ISSUE-208			List 2.0 algorithms in algorithms cross-reference	2010-06-29		0

ISSUE-210			Restructuring of Signature 2.0 "uncomplicate" section 4.4.3 by	2010-08-24		0

ISSUE-211			Stand alone version of Streaming XPath Profile versus diff, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Aug/0055.html	2010-08-24		0

ISSUE-213			XML Signature 2.0 needs precise definitions of Included/ExcludedXPath elements	2010-08-31		0

ISSUE-215			C14N2 conformance - optional parameters, profiles, etc

ISSUE-217			XML Signature 2.0 needs 2.0 mode examples, e.g. , verification, selection etc.	2010-09-07		0

ISSUE-218			For canonical xml 2.0 is eliminating inclusive c14n an issue for xml:base etc (which use cases are impacted), and should QName aware be mandatory	2010-11-16		0

ISSUE-219			Status of Reference Type attribute in 2.0?	2010-12-07		0

ISSUE-220			Clarify handling of comments and processing instructions in 2.0 mode , currently in terms of C14N	2010-12-07		0

ISSUE-221			Clarify xml:space and xml:base, section , http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-subtrees-with-exclusions	2010-12-07		0

ISSUE-222			Review URI definitions in Signature 2.0 , also consider indicating usage in URI, e.g. /transforms	2010-12-14		0

ISSUE-223			Requirement to "respect XML architecture" may lead to issue related to simplification and vs need to implement

ISSUE-224, 			why is base64 listed in algorithms section

Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 19:49:55 UTC

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