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

Re: Question: Status of Additional XML Security URIs

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:20:08 +0100
To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020605132008.6B2B44432D@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>


Hi Donald,

I would request removal of the XPointer transform: The new
XPath filter transform (in intersect mode, whatever form
we choose) is exactly equivalent.

Merlin

r/dee3@torque.pothole.com/2002.06.04/23:33:32
>
>Hi Jospeh,
>
>I've been thinking I should polish it a little and submit it as an
>Informational RFC. A W3C Note or internal version of it could certainly
>be produced as well, same as the base XMLDSIG document is issued in both
>organizations.
>
>I'm not sure if there are any pending specific additions although there
>have been a few which have been discussed in generalities. I'd
>appreciate it if anyone who had some specific request for an addition
>could send me some specific wording.
>
>Thanks,
>Donald
>======================================================================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
> 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
> Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
>
>On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:59:48 -0400
>> From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
>> To: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
>> Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
>> Subject: Question: Status of Additional XML Security URIs
>> Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:59:52 -0400 (EDT)
>> Resent-From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Donald, the "Additional XML Security URIs"  [1] draft will be expiring in
>> July. What should we do next with it? I don't think we've had many requests
>> for additions recently. Do you want to publish it as an Informational RFC?
>> Another option is to publish it on the W3C site. One could do it as a NOTE,
>> or even more informally, just as a document in the date space (e.g.,
>> /2002/01/foo) as just a staff/administrative thingie. Not good for
>> normative references, but it can be useful to applications...
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-02.txt
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 09:20:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:16 GMT