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: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:58:17 -0400
Message-ID: <3BA68A1200001FE9@mail.san.yahoo.com>
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
I concur with Don.  However, I would certainly be interested in arguments
in favour of options 1 or 2.


-- Original Message --

>Speaking just as a WG member, Option 1 leads to the longest delays in
>achieving higher standards levels.  The key phrase is "wait for
>Option 2 seems a bit flakey. There is a risk the higher approval
>bodies will decide this is really just a variation of 1 and impose
>delay. A better subvariation of option 2 would be to move them to an
>informational Appendex but see 3 / 4 below.
>Option 3 (labeled 2) and 4 seem best from the point of view of
>advancing the XMLDSIG spec. And if we think we know what we want to
>say about these transforms, which I believe we do, then putting them
>in the additional URIs/algorithms informational document seems like it
>adds value.
>So I think option 4 is the best way to go.
>From:  Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
>Reply-To:  reagle@w3.org
>Organization:  W3C
>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>
>Date:  Wed, 19 Sep 2001 17:38:42 -0400
>Cc:  "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
>References:  <LBEPJAONIMDADHFHAEAOKEABCJAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
>In-Reply-To:  <LBEPJAONIMDADHFHAEAOKEABCJAA.gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
>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
>>immediate plans to implement XML or Schema validation as a Signature 
>>transform. Baltimore has some support for both [1,2]. This is fine, no
>>is advocating these features as requirements. Folks will get to them in
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>before going to REC for a few weeks, but I'm less concerned with that
>>getting consensus on a good decision on our options above.

Ed Simon
XMLsec Inc.

Interested in XML Security Training and Consulting services?  Visit "www.xmlsec.com".
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 10:59:49 UTC

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