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

Re: Suggested Corrections to 10/20/99 WD

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:57:38 -0400
Message-Id: <199910220257.WAA31677@torque.pothole.com>
To: Richard Himes <rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us>
cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Thanks,
Donald

From:  Richard Himes <rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:29:48 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id:  <199910211929.PAA17145@www19.w3.org>
Message-ID:  <380F6988.4EA7EC3E@nmcourt.fed.us>
Date:  Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:29:13 -0600
To:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  8bit
Resent-From:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
X-Mailing-List:  <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> archive/latest/597
X-Loop:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Sender:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
Precedence:  list
>
>Following are suggested corrections to the 10/20/99 WD.  In some cases,
>I have enclosed text to be removed in square brackets [ ] and text to be
>added in curly braces { } for brevity.   I’m using “p” to mean paragraph
>here.
>
>last paragraph of 1.0 “including a method[s]”
>
>p 5 of 1.1 “algor[ith]ithms”
>
>p 6 of 1.3.1 “as show{n} above”
>
>1.3.3 “(CanonicalizationAlgorithm)[?]” (4.0/1 says this is mandatory)
>
>last para 1.3.3 “is applied{,} results”
>
>last para 1.3.4  I don’t understand what “asserts the equivalence of”
>means.
>
>3.0 ELEMENT statement contains a mismatched right parenthesis
>
>4.0 ATTLIST should be “id”, not “Id”
>
>p 1 of 4.1 “a[n] URI”   (I thought you might be pronouncing this
>phonetically, but elsewhere, “a URI” is used)
>
>last of 4.1 “may be replace{d}”
>
>p 1 of 4.3.1 “this approach might be used in associated a signature with
>a lightweight protocol data unit”  (I can’t parse this sentence)
>
>4.3.2 ELEMENT has CDATA, comment refers to its PCDATA
>
>p 1 of 4.3.3 SignedInfo instead of signedinfo
>p 1 of 4.3.3 Should encode be decode?  Don’t we want to decode (base64)
>as the transformation and sign the raw binary?  Also, encoding is listed
>twice in the sequence
>“encoding, canonicalization, XPointer, XSLT, filtering, encoding”
>
>p 1 of 4.3.3  “In addition[a]”
>
>p 3 or 4.3.3  I don’t understand the last two sentences of this
>paragraph.  Is this confusing to anyone else?  I think my main problem
>is the way the term “content” is used, and why its processing depends on
>whether the transformation is well known or not.
>
>4.3.3 perhaps the Encoding transform should be called Decoding, since
>that is the transform we are performing, I believe.
>
>4.3.5 DigestValue, not digestvalue
>
>7.2.1 “a[n] 20-octet [octet]
>
>7.4.2 “<insert example here>”
>
>7.5.1 “For many applications, one of the other canonicalization
>algorithms will be more appropriate.”  Is this sentence necessary?
>
>p 1 of 7.6.1 subject-verb mismatch
>
>Last para of 7.6.2 “input (…) is base-64 decoded”
>Shouldn’t the input to the transform be encoded, since the algorithm
>decodes it?
>
>8.1 step 5 refers to step “d”?
>8.2 step 6 refers to steps “d” and “e”?
>
>10.0 Example
>timestamp has xmlsn instead of xmlns
>KeyInfo is closed with /keyinfo instead of /KeyInfo
>
>Replace all SignatureAlg with SignatureAlgorithm
>Replace all CanonicalizationAlg with CanonicalizationAlgorithm
>
>Thanks,
>Rich Himes
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 October 1999 22:57:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:08 GMT