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

comments on 990806 Requirements Doc

From: by way of <dee3@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:08:35 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990817160835.009c34b0@localhost>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
2.2:  Suggest changing "The manifest includes..." to "The manifest must
support..." so as to permit other types of manifest.

3.1.2: Assumes the manifest of locators model.  Perhaps simply changing
"XML-signatures apply ..." to "XML-signatures may apply..." would give the
flexibility needed to accodate other models.

3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3: I don't understand why these points are at the
fourth
level.  Seems to me they should be move up one level in the outline.

3.1.3 & 3.3.1: Suggest replacing "negotiation" with "calculation".  I believe
this refers to Diffie-Hellman and I think calculation is more accurate than
negotiation.  Might even want to change 3.1.3 to be "...calculation of keying
material such as Diffie-Hellman agreement."

3.2.1: Suggest simply replacing "document" with "element" and dropping the
boxed
comment.

3.2.2: Suggest replacing "required" with "mandatory to implement".

3.3.3: I think behaviour in this case is application dependent.  It would be
good for applications to at least notice conflicts and be able to report
them.

Boxed comment at the end of 3.4: I don't see that packaging is that
dependent on
trust/semantic definitions.  Since there are fragment and package WGs, why
isn't
coordination with them adequate?

Donald

Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
17 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA
dee3@us.ibm.com   tel: 1-914-784-7913, fax: 1-914-784-3833

home: 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1, Carmel, NY 10512 USA
dee3@torque.pothole.com   tel: 1-914-276-2668
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 1999 16:08:45 GMT

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