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

RE: Poll on Exclusive Canonicalization

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:48:40 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010620104342.00ba1008@localhost>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: "'Brian LaMacchia'" <bal@microsoft.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>, IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 10:34 6/20/2001, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>There is more than one way to boil an ocean.

We need to specify it. (Canonical XML is done, there's nothing we can do to 
that spec.) The question is do we do specify exclusive canonicalization 
orthogonally and let xmldsig-core advance, or do we hold xmldsig-core until 
it's resolved so we can REQUIRE implementations to implement it. (Again, 
holding xmldsig-core for anything other than MUST doesn't make much sense to 
me now, and as you say the MUST in xmldsig-core won't tell people anything 
they don't already know if they face the enveloping scenario)...


--
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 Wednesday, 20 June 2001 10:48:44 GMT

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