Re: minimal canonicalization

--On Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2002 17:34 -0700 Carl Ellison <cme@jf.intel.com> wrote:

> In that case, you have a sender and a receiver.  If the sender is
> powerful, it is generating the signature and controlling its output,
> but it has no reason to use anything but C14N.  However, the receiver
> is limited in CPU power (and possibly memory) and needs to
> canonicalize the incoming message in order to verify the signature.
> That's the one that can't afford C14N.

The sender c14nizes to create the input for the digest. Right. But--the sender is free to even output canonical XML, so that the receiver already get's the canonical form. In that special case, there would be no necessity to c14nize because it is already done.

Christian