- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:39:43 -0400
- To: "Phillip M Hallam-Baker" <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 13:43 99.08.20 -0400, Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote: >> Removing selections of XML. Should the ability to >> preclude sections be a mandatory to implement >> feature/requirement of selection/c14n. > >Since it has already been agreed by the group that C14N >is OPTIONAL it cannot be part of a mandatory to implement >section. I agree. (Though the agreement over c14n being optional is over actual content referrenced in a package or manifest, not over the processing of the package or manifest itself, right? David and Richard's proposals seem to require c14n of those objects. David, Richard?) >I already have XML signature applications being specified. >I want to align them with the spec as soon as possible. I >do not want to be forced to wait for the outcome of the >C14N discussions to terminate before I can do this. Agree. I don't think we need to cram everything into c14n. There's a whole slew of transformations people will want to do, we need to make sure that our required to implement features are implemented by one of the required-to-implement mechanisms (be it an exclude tag or whatever.) >If the overhead of XML signatures exceeds that of CMS it >has lost all value for me. I think that is a worthwhile bound to come in under. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 20 August 1999 14:42:20 UTC