Status of Standards Track Requests

At the beginning of the month the Chairs requested that the management of
the W3C/IETF (Director/Area-Director-IESG) consider the Signature
specification for advancement onto the Standards track of both institutions.
[1] We know the request was aggressive (particularly with respect to the
C14N dependency) but we felt we were close and might as well get the ball
rolling. (Also, CR is a new thing at the W3C and there's not a large body of
experience regarding the entry criteria and dependencies which I wanted to
push on.)

Berners-Lee has reviewed the Last Call comments and dependencies and his
comments should make it to this list eventually. Basically, we need to hear
back from Martin/I18N with respect to their Internationalization meeting
last week; and we should normatively reference the "New Canonical XML"
instead of something we plan to deprecate. I think we'll hear back from
Martin soon, and we're making progress on C14N. What I'd like to do in the
next version is have examples using the New Canonical XML that have been
generated and confirmed by two independent implementations (we've been using
ones from Kent and Petteri). Once we cover those two bases (I18N and stable
C14N) I'm confident we can move forward in the W3C.

Schiller ack'd our request and stated he will review the document

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000AprJun/0260.html

_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 15:30:04 UTC