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

minor comments on Requirements

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 23:07:51 -0400
Message-Id: <199909080307.XAA09082@torque.pothole.com>
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
I must admit that some of these are pretty diddly...

2.2 Suggest "XML syntax signatures" instead of "XML signtuares" as
just saying "XML signatures" seems to, sooner or later, lead to
questions on whether they are signatures in XML syntax or signatures
of XML objects.

2.2 Drop comment.  As far as I can tell, no one is talking, or at
least not talking anymore, about implicitly indicating the data signed
by the mere placement of the signature.

3.2 Comment.  should end with "and/or" non-repudiability since we
support keyed hashes which do not provide technical non-repudiation.
(Note Intro says "and/or non-repudiabiilty".

7.1 Spell out "opt".

7.2 Suggest "Applications must use XLink locators when they reference
resources from within a manifest".  I don't like the slat of the
current wording which could imply that the use of a manifest is
mandatory.

3.1.2 Pushes manifest to much and mandates URIs or fragments when
sometimes we use XLink.

2.4 Suggest replacing "A key" with "An important".

3.3.3 I suppose it is OK with the note but when have a "requirement"
mandating a certain action when we may decide otherwise.

Thanks,
Donald
=====================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1 914-276-2668     dee3@torque.pothole.com
 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1  +1 914-784-7913(work)  dee3@us.ibm.com
 Carmel, NY 10512 USA
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 1999 23:07:55 GMT

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