W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org > April 1999

Re: IETF Signed-XML BOF Notes

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (W3C) <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 17:26:17 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990405172617.00968630@localhost>
To: dee3@us.ibm.com
Cc: "Signed-XML Workshop" <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org>, xml-dsig@socratic.org
At 01:29 PM 4/5/99 -0400, dee3@us.ibm.com wrote:
 >### On "why not just use S/MIME chunks?"  I think an XML
 >signature standard that isn't XML encoded misses the point.

I agree. And following up on Phillip's comments, I think what will make
sense is if in the signature one can express the semantic depth (surface
string, canonical XML, DOM, etc.) one wishes to achieve in the signature. If
you just want to sign the bits, then you can. Sometimes this might be
implied by the hash algorithm, but it should be explicit otherwise.

 >### It seems clear that there would be wider participation
 >in an IETF working group.  The BoF had 157 attendees that
 >signed the attendance list.  The last time I counted the
 >workshop was just over thirty including W3C staff.

Registration closed with 40 folks registered which was the cap. 

 >fewer than the number of people at the BoF who said they
 >would actively work on an IETF XML DSIG standards effort.
 >The IETF is a more open process and is less expensive to
 >participate in.

Fair enough. I personally am not terribly vested in this having to happen at
the W3C. What I do want is that it be a well integrated piece of the whole
XML frabric. We'll have to see what people say on that note. Regardless of
where it happens, I think it should have coordination requirements whereby
it is synchronized and reviewd by the W3C XML-link and Sytax Working Groups
at least.
___________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.  W3C:     http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Policy Analyst     Personal:  http://web.mit.edu/reagle/www/
                   mailto:reagle@w3.org
Received on Monday, 5 April 1999 17:26:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 11:28:03 EDT