W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: broken URL in the

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:53:43 +0100
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020404165343.BECFC43BEA@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>
Hi Joseph,

r/reagle@w3.org/2002.04.02/16:57:15
>Merlin, thank you for the new examples but I had a couple of questions.

>I'm confused as to whether your update [1] is supposed to replace 
>merlin-fifteen and merlin-sixteen in the interop matrix? (I think for new 
>implementors, it's easier to download a working tar ball than one with some 
>broken versions and updates.)

It was a temporary fix while I was on the road. Attached is an
updated single archive that is a replacement for -fifteen (simple
signatures), -sixteen (complex signature) and -seventeen (various
key info types).

>Also, Don said he'd tried to restore xmldsig.pothole but I don't think he 
>has, and I'm still willing to provide a necessary URI.

Now using http://www.w3.org/Signature/2002/04/xml-stylesheet.b64.

>As an aside, unless the post office has a address namespace, it's probably 
>best to start the URI with example.org.

Now using http://example.org/XXX.

>Also, I wasn't sure what you were trying to do with [2], but I don't think 
>it worked since the attachement didn't get a new URI?

Was trying for a new URI, but it got inlined.

>Finally, one of your examples uses 
>"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#Reference" and that identifier does not 
>exist (there's no definition, if we need such an identifier we should 
>create one instead of abusing the 09/xmldsig namespace.)

Removed; that was from a hand-built template.

I've also reissued the certs with a longer validity, so the
cert-based examples will be more accessible.

It might be best to wait for someone to validate the signatures
before relying on their usefulness, although things seemed to be
working last time around.

Merlin

>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002JanMar/0263.html
>[2] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002JanMar/0263.html
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
   http://www.baltimore.com



Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 11:54:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:15 GMT