Re: initial Exclusive Canonicalization draft

I don't really care that much where the documentation of the algorithm
URI and parameters for Exclusive XML Canonicalization go. But XMLDSIG
is quite stable so I don't think we want to add things there.  It
seems to me that the More XMLDSIG URIs document is really intended for
secondary things. So I guess I lean towards putting it in the
EXCL-C14N specification.

Donald

From:  merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
To:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc:  "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
In-reply-to:  <4.3.2.7.2.20010712184849.0259f008@localhost> 
Date:  Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:42:31 +0100
Message-Id:  <20010715224231.EFA0C43BCB@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

>r/reagle@w3.org/2001.07.12/18:54:45
>>At 07:58 7/12/2001, merlin wrote:
>>>The encoding (and, incidentally, your algorithm URI) belongs in &more;
>>
>>If I understand you, I don't agree with this. This specification should 
>>define its own identifier. Why would it exist in &more;?
>
>I just look at &exc; as the specification for an algorithm and &more;
>as a specification for how certain algorithms are identified and encoded
>for use in &dsig;. In much the same way, &c14n; specifies an algorithm
>and &dsig; specifies (among other things) algorithm identifiers and
>parameter encoding. The &exc; document is not tied to &dsig; and really
>doesn't need to know how it will be encoded.
>
>If this is not how things are, then I'm wrong. merlin