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

arguments related to producing XML Encryption 2.0 draft

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:00:05 +0000
To: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <9BDE013D-5361-4DE7-B376-2FF7837C4C83@nokia.com>
We discussed whether we should produce an XML Encryption 2.0 as part of the 2.0 suite of documents.

Arguments in favor are

1. it is simpler to refer to a set of stand-one 2.0 documents. It is confusing to refer to XML Encryption 1.1 plus a 2.0 transform document as a 2.0 version.

2. We might change the processing rules regarding use of URI attribute in 2.0 in the general text (or even change the schema to make it optional)

Arguments against are

3. It is easier to see the change when it is stand-alone, especially since it is relatively small. This also makes review (and testing) easier. It limits the risk of introducing errors due to duplication and revision of material.

4. A 2.0 would imply more significant changes which we have not considered or done, thus could be misleading and need a subsequent revision

5. Keeping the 2.0 transform use as a separate draft makes the backward compatibility argument clear

Note that #2 asks the question of whether we want to make a breaking schema change to 1.1 or a change to the processing rules ; the current approach of a separate draft assumes not, but doesn't use the URI attribute on CipherReference, thus ignoring an original processing rule.

Comments, especially on #2?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 15:00:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 June 2011 15:00:45 GMT