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

Re: Brown draft feedback on time stamping and on criticality flags

From: David Solo <david.solo@citicorp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:07:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199907301432.KAA27281@egate3.citicorp.com>
To: Phillip M Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
I think the key point here is the semantics of the field (which,
absolutely, c14n must preserve).  My interpretation is that the time
type's semantics is to identify an instant in time (time zone is merely
a notational option) and even if TZ is present, the semantics doesn't
imply that's where the signer was.  

I think you and Tom (et al.) are indicating that there is a place for a
different attribute which describes other properties of the signature. 
I think defining such an attribute is fine, although outside of the core
syntax.

Dave

Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> > If canonicalization entails loss of time-zone information, then I predict
> > the FDA (for one) won't accept canonicalized time-stamps as signature
> > time-stamps. Perhaps the solution would be to canonicalize the time-zone
> > information separately.
> 
> This issue demonstrates one of the main problems with 'canonicalization'.
> For canonicalization to be possible the transformation must be semantically
> neutral.
> 
> Transformations which lose information are not semantically neutral.
> Therefore transforming dates to GMT is not semantically neutral.
> 
> I'm not particularly bothered by the canonicalization spec so long
> as I am not forced to use it.
> 
>         Phill
Received on Friday, 30 July 1999 12:07:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:07 GMT