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

Poll (Was: Question for Implementors (Was: Schema Validation Transform))

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 17:38:42 -0400
To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>, <Petteri.Stenius@done360.com>, <harada@prs.cs.fujitsu.co.jp>, <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, <sugiyama@isd.nec.co.jp>, <bal@microsoft.com>, <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Cc: "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Message-Id: <20010919213843.4E05787561@policy.w3.org>
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 05:33, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
> we (IAIK) have not yet implemented XML and schema validation transform.

My rough tally then is 5 implementors have responded that they do not have 
immediate plans to implement XML or Schema validation as a Signature 
transform. Baltimore has some support for both [1,2]. This is fine, no one 
is advocating these features as requirements. Folks will get to them in due 
time. However, our problem is that folks *will* get to them, and they'll 
wonder how to do it properly. This question has already identified a few 
ambiguities in our spec that we've been able to fix.

The immediate question facing us then is what to do with these parts of the 
spec in the mean time? Please send your response (particularly from 
implementors) by the end this week. Should we:

1. Retain the sections [3] as is and wait for interop.
2. Retain the sections  [3]in a modified form and argue they are merely 
INFORMATIONAL. Neither transform requires much by way of a specified 
feature. If we eliminated the porting of a schema as a child of the 
<Transform Algorithm="&schema;"/>, all we are doing is agreeing upon the 
algorithm URI, and repeating what the XML and schema inputs/outputs to the 
vaidation are from their own specs.
2. Remove the sections (but continue to leave hints that schema and XML 
validation should be treated as transforms).
4. Remove the sections and place them in the Auxillary Algorithms draft?

Whatever we do, we *might* have to bounce back down to a last call or CR 
before going to REC for a few weeks, but I'm less concerned with that then 
getting consensus on a good decision on our options above.

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 17:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:36 UTC