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: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:50:33 +0200
To: <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LBEPJAONIMDADHFHAEAOGEBFCJAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
I have not a very strong opinion here.

I tend to opt for [1], whereas I think the the current draft sections
need some improvement.

Liebe Gruesse/Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
DI Gregor Karlinger
mailto:gregor.karlinger@iaik.at
http://www.iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:39 PM
> To: Gregor Karlinger; merlin; 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; Eastlake
> Subject: Poll (Was: Question for Implementors (Was: Schema Validation
> Transform))
>
>
> 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.
>
> [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-SchemaVali
dation
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 05:50:41 UTC

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