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

Re: W3C XML Canonicalization -- must read

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:03:12 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000124180312.0093f540@localhost>
To: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 23:28 00/01/21 -0500, Ed Simon wrote:
 >Two areas we know we need to explore are the octet representation
 >of characters (eg. the character model)

To that end, the snippets of the relative reports are below:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2000Jan/0000.html

Relative to the rest of XML C14N, I believe Unicode C14N is relatively
complex and resource intensive.  It will make a significant difference
to either code size or speed (you can probably implement slowly in a
little code, or fast in a lot of code).  In the context of its use for
digital signatures, XML C14N needs to be performed in scenarios where
processing resources are strictly limited. 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/2000Jan/0001.html

The overhead of normalization is not large in code space or data space or
time.  I have provided a non-normative explanation of the algorithm at ...
In general, a table space of about 8K bytes is involved, and the process
is O(N) except on pathological data.


_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 18:03:25 GMT

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