W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Minutes:1999.06.09 XML Syntax WG

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:02:29 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Some people have asked why is the Syntax WG doing C14N. Mainly it's
historical, someone sort of needed to do a definition of what XML meant, and
it would be useful for conformance testing and Signatures, so the Syntax
group was giving the ball. Infoset is defining what XML "means", and the
Syntax WG has to decided to make the C14N an Infoset subset+processing
(rather elegant). We will continue to assume the application of (1) DSIG and
(2) conformance testing have no requirements which force them to diverge
unless we have evidence to the contrary.

If any W3C folk are keen on joining the Syntax WG, they are looking for a
C14N editor. We hope to post a new C14N requirements document within the day
and a first public WD ASAP.

Forwarded Text ----
 Chairs: recruit co-editor for C14N WD.
 	Not Done, Any Volunteers? 
 James T. or Co-editor: Update WD to reflect all of the changes
 or additions that have come up since it was published:
 Last part of:
 Last Part of:
 This is all here to just be helpful to the editors.
 	James T. said to be posting new WD as the meeting is going on.
 	Consensus: Group to review new WD.
 4. Scheduling, and dependencies.
 Group is supposed to be finished with work by June 30th.
 That will not happen. 
 The XML-DSig WG: Needs the first WD to be out by June 25th.
 	Joseph: Possible hold up going to PR, even if done, waiting on
 	XML-DSig to finish.
 Any time dependencies from InformationSet WG?
 	ACTION: Joel to talk to David Meggison.
 5. Canonicalization
 Items for review:
 1. Should we add the algorithm for taking any XML document, and
 make it have the property of standalone="Yes" that James T. talked
 about earlier, as an appendix to the C14N Spec. Or should this
 just be a note to be published separately?
 	Consensus: Yes, if editorial resources are available.
 2. Correspondence with InfoSet and this WG. What issues need
 to be reviewed and decided?
 	Paul: Why should we deliver a C14N algorithm for DSig, when we
 	are not experts in DSig.
 	Joseph: To start with, have a smaller group to be used and		tested.
 	James C: Does not believe that all XML InfoSet information is
 	needed to do processor conformance.
 	ACTION: Joseph to see if he can get a co-editor from the
 	XML-DSig WG who is in the W3C come join this group to be a
 	co-editor for the XML-DSig part of the Spec.
 	Consensus: Proceed with working on both use cases, and
 	discover where needs are different.
 6. Changes to RD between WG approval, and submission to W3C team.
 	ACTION: Joel send Location to Joseph Reagle, so he can
 	put on TR Page.
 	ACTION: Joseph to post email to WG list when done.
 	Consensus: Group will review posted RD from the TR page.
End Forwarded Text ----
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst      mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-DSig Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 1999 15:04:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:31 UTC