W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Prepping Next Version of Signature Spec

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 22:11:25 -0400
Message-Id: <200104060211.WAA0000037402@torque.pothole.com>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, lde008@dma.isg.mot.com

In order to go to Draft Standard, the IETF requires there be two
indepenent interoperable implementations of each significant
option/feature.  As far as I can tell, there are none for Minimal
Canonicalization.  Unless a couple pop up in the next few days, say by
next Tuesday, I suggest that it be dropped from the specification.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Message-Id:  <4.3.2.7.2.20010404122156.01ffe008@rpcp.mit.edu>
Date:  Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:23:44 -0400
To:  "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
In-Reply-To:  <4.3.2.7.2.20010403173259.02727d70@rpcp.mit.edu>

>Oh, two other things to note, in the first CR we asked for feedback on the 
>use of XPath terminology, and whether minC14N should be downgraded to 
>optional. We didn't have any feedback on either, so I expect we should leave 
>them as is.
>__
>Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
>W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
>IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
>W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 22:11:39 GMT

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