W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Add RSA-SHA224 to XML Signature 1.1 or not?

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:02:48 +0000
To: <cantor.2@osu.edu>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <785E3665-CC22-4E85-8002-F3DD74D20F5D@nokia.com>
ok, I'll add it unless I hear an objection. Donald definitely has it on the list of things to add and we know what the URL is supposed to be and given an implementation it makes sense to have it documented.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:49 PM, ext Cantor, Scott wrote:

> On 7/13/12 2:37 PM, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com"
> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
>> Note I did *not* add RSA-SHA224 to the XML Signature 1.1 or 2.0 specs as
>> we do not yet have a normative RFC reference (RFC 4051).
>> 
>> Should I add it now?  My inclination is not to add it as we do not have a
>> suitable reference and there is no pressing need, yet I would like after
>> the next LC/CR to be done, so maybe we should add it. What is the opinion
>> of the WG?
> 
> If I have a vote, it's to add it, because of the historical bug I
> inherited.
> 
>> By the way, Donald has this on his list of items for the RFC 4051 update,
>> but the timing of that might be out of sync with our schedule.
> 
> Nevertheless, those URLs are not IETF-owned, they're W3C's. If it's his
> intention to do so, my strong preference would be that we get it done now.
> If OTOH it wasn't even planned to ever define it, then I understand not
> doing so.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 20:03:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 20:03:27 GMT