W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

Going ahead with Candidate Rec

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:35:39 -0400
Message-ID: <051401bfe2c2$06cd3db0$a60a1712@col.w3.org>
To: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: <JIS@mit.edu>

(JIS - Does the IESG have any problem with this going to Proposed Standard?
I gather there is a joint copyright statement issue.  If there are other
issues I would be happy to discuss them jointly. Tim)

Joseph, DSig group,

I agree this should continue to move fast.  We needs still to match
both IETF and W3C workflow at the same time, and resolve
open issues, which seem to be those from the i18n W3C WG and
the dependency on the Canonicalization (canon'n) spec from the DSig WG:


1. We need feedback from the I18n working group that they are
happy that their comments have been appropriately addressed.
You indicated that the comments in fact should apply to at
  the upcoming canon'n spec - we need an acknowledgement that
  this makes sense to i18n too. We expect this from the upcoming meeting.


2. With respect to the canon'n dependency, this is clearly
a strong dependency.  That is, any change to the c'n spec
will almost always affect the code and documents which conform
to the DSig spec.

The implication of going to CR is that the working group
is done making any changes of whose need they are aware.
This is the level of stability granted in exchange for the
implementations sought at this level.

The Dsig spec will be held up until the canon'n spec is ready to go to
CR too. It will be edited to make a normative reference to canon'n.
This is the normal, simple way of taking specs though in sync.
It prevents there being a normative reference from one standard
to a document of lower status, which is considered inadmissable
in W3C, IETF and ISO as far as I know.

In understand that you expect the canon'n spec to come though very quickly.


With respect to last call comments, I respect the analysis you
and others in T&S have done that the comments have been disposed
of fairly, and the commentators notified of the disposition;
I have not read the spec in detail or recently so I cannot say I
have reviewed it technically.  (I did make earlier comments about
what I considered a more logical syntax but I do see that as
a problem).


These, then, are  the issues which we discussed and which are
apparent to me; the IESG may find other issues.
I know that you need review within W3C and also within the IETF
at the same time.  I am happy to meet with the IESG or the
security area directors to discuss this in the event that this will help.

Tim Berners-Lee
Received on Friday, 30 June 2000 14:34:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:09 GMT