Re: Three Issues for C14N Consideration

Joseph,
I reviewed your post on the Syntax WG
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Jun/0075.html).

 I think you got my point wrong.
The current WD does provide context independence of canonical forms.
This is an important property if we want to allow signing a part (a
subelement)
of an XML document.
The current WD seems to allow canonicalization of a whole document only.
Am I wrong?

Hiroshi

--
Hiroshi Maruyama
Manager, Network Applications, Tokyo Research Laboratory
+81-462-73-4576, maruyama@jp.ibm.com
Also Associate Professor, Dept. of Computer Science, Tokyo Institute of
Technology
+81-3-5734-3953, maruyama@cs.titech.ac.jp


From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> on 99/06/22 03:55 AM

To:   Hiroshi Maruyama/Japan/IBM
cc:   w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Subject:  Re: Three Issues for C14N Consideration





At 08:35 AM 6/20/99 +0900, Hiroshi Maruyama wrote:
 >After following the discussion between Don and James Clark, however, I
 >realized that James Clark's proposal can also be made context independent
 >as he points out.  In the light of the increased readability as well as
 >avoidance of complexity of introducing the digest algorithm, I think it
is
 >more reasonable and more preferable to have a C14N definition based on
his
 >proposal, using generated prefixes such as "n1", "n2", ..., and so on for
 >EACH element.

Thank you Hiroshi. I will report this back to the Syntax WG.

_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/