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: Karl Scheibelhofer <Karl.Scheibelhofer@iaik.at>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:06:10 +0100
To: <reagle@w3.org>, "'John Boyer'" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "'merlin'" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00bd01c1a8a4$31f160d0$64981b81@iaik.at>
personally, i do not think that big changes, like introducing new filter
mechanisms, are desirable and technically necessary.
i do not know how stable XPointer really is and what their time schedule
is. however, the use of XPointer as specified in section "
Same-Document URI-References" is quite OK as far as i can see at the
(btw, does step 4 in this section mean that step 4 should be repeated
for each descendant element of E? i guess it should.)
i see that there is a problem with using XPointer in XMLDsig, if it is
not sure when it will become recommendation.


  Karl Scheibelhofer


Karl Scheibelhofer, <mailto:Karl.Scheibelhofer@iaik.at>
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications (IAIK)
at Graz University of Technology, Austria, http://www.iaik.at and
Phone: (+43) (316) 873-5540

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:38 PM
> To: John Boyer; Karl Scheibelhofer; merlin
> Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bad news! RE: History: Question on C14N list of 
> nodes instead of subtrees
> 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 Tuesday, 29 January 2002 04:02:04 UTC

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