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

Poll on Exclusive Canonicalization

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:27:05 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010614153157.00b5dac8@localhost>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: "Donald Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>

Members of the WG (and particularly implementors represented in the interop 
matrix), it's important that we know which direction you would like us to 
take. So please respond, on the list, to the following poll by end of Monday 
June 18th.

With respect to the issue of excluding ancestor context from the canonical 
form of a signature[1], the WG should pursue option:

1. Specify the exclusive canonicalization as part of the non-normative (nor 
required to implement) dsig-more specification [2].
2.Specify the exclusive canonicalization as part of the normative 
xmldsig-core  as proposed in [3] (but with the URIs of [4]) as [REQUIRED, 
RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL]. (This option requires interoperable implementation 
of this feature before xmldsig advances.)

Donald & Joseph

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-NamespaceContext
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/att-0293/01-sigport.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#excC14N
      http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#excC14N-WithComments

--
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, 14 June 2001 16:27:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:35 UTC