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

RE: Comments on last call draft

From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:11:58 -0800
To: "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
This is only true for required-to-implement features.

Recommended and optional features already sacrifice a certain amount of
global interoperability.

If we follow your advice to the end, it means that we cannot sign XML at
all, in whole or in part, because we cannot count on attribute order going
from tool to tool, which will break signatures signatures unless full c14n
is required or, at the very least, lex order XPath serialization.

John Boyer
Software Development Manager
PureEdge Solutions, Inc. (formerly UWI.Com)

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of TAMURA Kent
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on last call draft

> XML tools have to process XML documents according to XML
> Information Set even in low-capacity environment.  Many XML
> tools assume they may change attributes order.  If the XML
> Signature, which is an open standard, standardized exact order
> even optionally, it would tear down interoperability of XML.

Minimal Canonicalization should be removed with the same reason.

TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2000 20:10:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:33 UTC