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

Re: Problem with canonical form?

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:55:50 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010110115325.0201aa70@rpcp.mit.edu>
To: "Joseph Ashwood" <jashwood@arcot.com>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Ok,

Given this I will add it to the Signature issues list [1], and note it as a 
minority position (class="minority"). I will also mention it at the upcoming 
Canonicalization Proposed Rec Review. If you get a new spin on it, or in 
subsequent decision become willing to remove your objection of the WG's 
decision, please let me know.


[1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/20000228-last-call-issues.html (see bottom)

At 12:00 1/9/2001 -0800, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
> > So I think there are three courses open to you on this issue:
> > 3. A noted opposition in the specifications' issues document.
>
>This seems like the most reasonable thing to do at this point. Because the
>rest of the spec is close to completion, it would be foolish to hold it up,
>however having it noted is a reasonable answer. Additionally I have given it
>some thought, and I am now unconvinced that Canonical XML is actually the
>problem, the problem may be buried more deeply, and it will take quite a bit
>more investigation to uncover the real source. I think having a noted issue
>with the specification would at this point be the most reasonable thing.
>                     Joe


__
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2001 11:55:59 GMT

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