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

Re: Bad news! RE: History: Question on C14N list of nodes instead of subtrees

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:38:18 -0500
Message-Id: <200201282238.RAA11832@tux.w3.org>
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "Karl Scheibelhofer" <Karl.Scheibelhofer@iaik.at>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Monday 28 January 2002 17:01, John Boyer wrote:
> The XFDL design specifies subtree roots *and* uses one of two keywords:
> keep or omit.  If you say 'keep', then the subtrees specified are the
> ones kept by the signature filter.  If you say 'omit', then the entire
> document except the specified subtrees are omitted. 

John, this sounds like a good technical approach. As I've mentioned before, 
I don't think cycling in our current dual/over-extended process is the 
right timing/process approach. Regardless, if you're willing to do the work 
(and it sounds like this issue has the attention of the implementors) I'd 
suggest writing up a draft as we did with exc-c14n. Moving an external 
document is much easier with respect to focus, process, and attention then 
trying to address a problem in the larger document. (I'm very glad we 
resisted the calls to specify exc-c14n *within* the xmldsig document and 
get it entangled in that process!) I want to get xmldsig syntax/processing 
(remember, we used to call it "core"!) out of the way, then recharter so we 
can focus on getting and addressing experience resulting from wide 
deployment in all kinds of application scenarios.


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 Monday, 28 January 2002 17:38:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:37 UTC