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

000907-tele Minutes

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:25:18 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000907142250.00b37d90@rpcp.mit.edu>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Minutes/000907-tele.html

   2000-September-7
   Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Joseph Reagle
   Note Taker: Joseph Reagle

Participants

      * Donald Eastlake, Motorola
      * Joseph Reagle, W3C
      * John M. Boyer, PureEdge
      * *Merlin Hughes, Baltimore
      * Ed Simon , Entrust Technologies Inc.
      * Mark Bartel, JetForm

   Status of documents < 5 minutes

      * Next draft of Canonicalization ([5]WD-xml-c14n-20000907) is being
        published today, includes a link to its [6]Last Call Issues

       [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20000613
       [6] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/09/06-c14n-last-call-issues.html

   Canonicalization < 15 minutes

      * Boyer: would like implementors to confirm if his examples operate
        in the new spec the way implemenations do.
      * Namespaces: Kent asked about rational for namespace reduction,
        Boyer responded on list and in [7]Last Call Issues.
      * Whitespace: addressed in [8]Last Call Issues. Presently, this can
        invite a ton of trouble that people aren't keen to get into right
        now.
      * DOMHASH: some discussion, not a lot of interest presently. DOMHASH
        should work with present canonicalizations.

       [7] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/09/06-c14n-last-call-issues.html
       [8] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/09/06-c14n-last-call-issues.html

   Content Model

      * Moved Transforms content model to ElementOnly.

   RSA and OIDS

      * Merlin posted a [9]summary of options.
      * Bartel prefer 2.
      * ACTION: Reagle, email poll of which option people want.
      * ACTION: Reagle, get Brian/Barb to tweak text once resolved..

       [9] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0398.html

   RetrievalMethod Type

      * No one opposed to making Type optional subsequent to [10]Reagle's
        argument: since its not associated with mandatory behaviour, why
        make it mandatory when it can also constrain people in ways that
        don't benefit anyone.

      [10] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0434.html

   Other

      * Eastlake wants to tweak KeyInfo example of 4.4.4. ACTION Eastlake:
        send to Reagle this afternoon.
      * Boyer: Include in STATUS: Implementors should take special note of
        the here() function, it's not the same as the XPointer for which a
        few questions have been raised and the XLink WG is looking at but
        haven't responded to yet.
      * Simon: We're trying to organize an XML Encryption meeting, looking
        at the end of October (week of October 30th).
      * Boyer (and others): later in week would be better for those adults
        who have children (and those adults who still enjoy Halloween
        themselves :) .)



_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 14:25:19 GMT

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