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

Re: Draft Minutes of 24 August 2000 Teleconference

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:47:59 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000829164759.013f6ce0@localhost>
To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 21:43 8/24/2000 +0000, Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
 >- KeyInfo/X509Data - there were no objections to the last version
 >posted by Donald Eastlake which appears to be the consensus:
 ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0318.html>

Ok, placed in Editors' copy.

 >- RetrievalMethod - there was agreement with the comments by Gregor
 >that URI should be a mandatory attribute.  Donald will change and
 >repost.

Ok, I tried to work this in with Merlin's correction, and created new namespaces for KeyInfo element types, however, is the Type supposed to be mandatory? (See previous message).

 >turn based on the discussions during last weeks teleconference.  An
 >important question is whether a <foo:bar#mumble> URI returns an octet
 >string or (when the target is XML) a node set or the serialization of
 >a node set.

What's the action item on answering this question?

 >- qualifying attributes - After brief discussion, the conclustions
 >were as follows: our current schema calls for attributes to not be
 >namespace qualified.  We should include a sentence indicated that
 >qualifying the attributes we define is an error.  It would be good to
 >see if schema checks will flag such problems.
 >the whole document.  [I have a note that there is an action related
 >to this for Joseph but I don't remember exactly what it is.]

My action item was to determine if a schema validator would choke on a qualified attribute if we said in fact there is an unqualified attribute (or what happens if a qualified and unqualified version are both present?). As I suspect, a qualified attribute would be schema invalid: in [1] the Id attribute on the Signature is schema valid [2]. The qualified dsig:ID attribute in [3] is schema invalid [4]. Consequently, I don't think there is any argument for us to change our unqualified attributes, it makes the XPath expressions a bit shorter too.

[1] http://policy.w3.org/WD-xmldsig-core-latest/signature-example-dsa.xml
<Signature Id="foo" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/xmldsig#">

[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xsv?docAddrs=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy.w3.org%2FWD-xmldsig-core-latest%2Fsignature-example-dsa.xml++http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy.w3.org%2FWD-xmldsig-core-latest%2Fxmldsig-core-schema.xsd&keepGoing=on&style=offline

[3] http://policy.w3.org/WD-xmldsig-core-latest/qname-signature-example-dsa.xml
<Signature dsig:Id="foo" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsig="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/xmldsig#">

[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xsv?docAddrs=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy.w3.org%2FWD-xmldsig-core-latest%2Fqname-signature-example-dsa.xml+http%3A%2F%2Fpolicy.w3.org%2FWD-xmldsig-core-latest%2Fxmldsig-core-schema.xsd&style=offline




_________________________________________________________
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, 29 August 2000 16:48:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:11 GMT