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

Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed!

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:08:48 -0400
Message-Id: <200204172108.RAA09124@tux.w3.org>
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@cio.gv.at>, TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, Ari Kermaier <arik@phaos.com>, Aleksey Sanin <aleksey@aleksey.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org

As mentioned in [1] and expected in [2] I'd like to move this document 
forward. If I request Proposed REC I might be able to make a case for 
advancement on the basis of [0], but the more documentation I have, the 
better. In particular I'd like to:
1. Fill in the row for the "#default" token and adequate performance for 
the empty cells.
2. Have a report that someone tested it (even informally) in some 
application context (e.g., SOAP) and it did what they needed it to do.
3. Have someone else try Gregor's examples.

If you can contribute on any of these fronts, please do so -- if you can't 
immediately but hope to do so soon, feel free to email me off list. Also, 
if you know you have concerns or problems with exc-c14n, speak now or 
forever hold your peace! <smile/>


[0 http://www.w3.org/Signature/2002/02/01-exc-c14n-interop

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002AprJun/0043
2. Exclusive Canonicalization
I feel like the work on this specification is done and we're pretty much 
ready to move forward. I'd like to hear a few more people report success 
with Gregor's tests [1] and that you're satisfied with its operation in an 
application context. (Even if you've already sent in a report, if your 
column isn't complete or haven't interop'd with Gregor's tests, please do 
so.) If I get this feedback soon, I'll stage it for publication as a 
Proposed REC at the end of this month!

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml-exc-c14n-20020212
We expect to meet all requirements of
   that report within the two month Candidate Recommendation period
   (closing April 16). Specific areas where we would appreciate further
   implementation experience are:
    1. Speed of canonicalziation relative to Canonical XML; [23]it should
       be no slower, is it faster?
    2. Use in application contexts. Does the specified behaviour meet
       application requirements for flexibly canonicalizing document
       subsets if they are moved out of their context? For example,
       [24]does your application scenario lead to any difficulties in
       which a subset (e.g., payload) require the use of an ancestor base
       that is not easily remedied by including xml:base in the apex of
       the subset?

-- 

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 17:10:11 GMT

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