W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: SOAP Message Canonicalization

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:21:24 -0500
Cc: dee3@torque.pothole.com, w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F1A41F12-24BF-11D7-B25F-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Friday, Jan 10, 2003, at 11:12 US/Eastern, Joseph Reagle wrote:

> On Friday 10 January 2003 10:55, Marc Hadley wrote:
>>> <Reference
>>>  URI="http://example.com/foo.html">
>>>   <Transforms>
>>>     <Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2002/11/sm-c14n"/>
>>>     <Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/>
>>>   </Transforms>
>> Would there be any value in specifying both a distinct transform and a
>> canonicalization algorithm ?
> This is what I did above... Oh, there's probably a terminology issue
> involved? A canonicalization algorithm *is* a transform. It's a 
> transform
> that's understood to create a canonical form without incidental 
> variances
> (under some applications definition of "incidental"); these particular
> types of transforms can be applied against SignedInfo as well -- while
> generic multi-step transform processes can't. So with this said, what
> exactly did you mean?
Sorry for the confusion, I meant specify a transform and assign it a 
URI. Then assign another URI to the combination of the transform 
specified and exclusive canonicalization as a 'new' canonicalization 

>>> 3. Just curious, but how much of a demand was for these application
>>> variances, particularly "0" and "false." (Would seem easier just to
>>> choose
>>> one from the outset...?)
>> IIRC, the working group wanted to use the standard simple schema types
>> where possible. Even if this were fixed we would still have to
>> normalize 'defaulted' attribute values, processing instructions and
>> whitespace.
> But, if I understand correctly, you don't want to require schema 
> validation?
> (Otherwise, SchemaCentic c14n might be worth consideration?
>   http://www.uddi.org/pubs/SchemaCentricCanonicalization-20020710.htm
> )
True, there is some slight schizophrenia there ;-).


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 12:21:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:38 UTC