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

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

From: 杉山 高弘 <t-sugiyama@da.jp.nec.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:27:38 +0900
Message-ID: <017501c1426e$ef4692a0$ad7e110a@isd.nec.co.jp>
To: <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, <bal@microsoft.com>, <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, <harada@prs.cs.fujitsu.co.jp>, <Petteri.Stenius@done360.com>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Dear Mr. Joseph

We(NEC) select 1 in the following question.
If the latest spec supports The Reference Processing Model in 4.3.3.2,
it is necessary to Retain the sections [3] .
However, we have not underdstood the latest spec completely yet.
This is  just only reference opinion.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>
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>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:38 AM
Subject: Poll (Was: Question for Implementors (Was: Schema Validation Transform))



> 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.
> 3. 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.
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0219.html
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0225.html
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-XMLValidation
> http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-SchemaValidation
>
>
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 03:32:35 UTC

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