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

Re: Chair Request: Final Comments Submissions to RD

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:35:43 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Winchel 'Todd' Vincent, III" <winchel@mindspring.com>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 01:18 PM 6/11/99 -0400, Winchel 'Todd' Vincent, III wrote:
 >At the workshop, we discussed the ability to sign BLOBs not simply an XML
 >document.  I do not see this requirement above.

Right. It does derive from the fact that one is referring to a resource by
way of a URI (as does sigs of sigs, multiple sigs, etc.) but I am now much
clearer. I also added Richard Hime's ealier requirement about being able to
sign the original document encoding. [1]

 >Does this mean that XML-Signature will use XML (not RDF) that is modeled
 >such that it translates easily into RDF, but does not actually use RDF?

It means that we should have some representation of our data model, be it a
directed label graph, set of 3-tuples, RDF syntax, or what-not. I'm not
advocating the RDFsyntax, just a data model, such that one will be able to
do cool queries across things like signatures on signatures.

 >Finally, a minor point, I notice that this workgroup and workproduct is
 >alternatively called Signed XML and XML-DSig

XML-Signature(s) is the normative name, I've tweaked that document to
reflect that.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xml-dsig-requirements-990601.html
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst      mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-DSig Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 14 June 1999 17:35:45 UTC

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