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

RE: Minutes:1999.04.28 XML Syntax WG

From: Richard D. Brown <rdbrown@GlobeSet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:49:40 -0500
To: "'Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'" <reagle@w3.org>, "'XML-DSig Workshop'" <w3c-xml-sig-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000f01be924f$8335b7c0$0bc0010a@artemis.globeset.com>
Joseph,

I noticed your comments about the absence of the DOCTYPE directive in the
C14N form. Though I tend to agree that we may do without DTD defintions, I
think that we still need a reference to the DTD. In most circumstances, this
is the main piece of information to establishing the semantics of the
document. Unless the root element is explicitly bound to the DTD namespace,
this may be a problem.

BTW: Do you known when an early draft of C14N will be available?

Sincerely,

Richard D. Brown

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-xml-sig-ws-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-xml-sig-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph M.
> Reagle Jr.
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 2:17 PM
> To: XML-DSig Workshop
> Subject: Minutes:1999.04.28 XML Syntax WG
>
>
> I don't plan to necessarily do this every week, but I thought I would
> forward these Syntax WG notes on given their relevance and since I was
> purporting to represent workshop consensus.
>
> C14N: short hand for canonicalization.
> RD: Requirements Document
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-canonical-req
>
> Excerpt Text ----
>
>  In attendance: Joel Nava, Tim Bray (in part), James Tauber,
>  Joseph Reagle, Murata Makoto, Tim Boland, ...
>
> ...
>
>  > 4. Canonicalization
>  >
>  > On the Needs of the Dsig Workshop for Canonical XML we had an email
>  > report from Joseph:
>  >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Apr/
> 0076.html
>  >
>  > Perhaps, we can get a more through report from Joseph, in the
>  > teleconference to see what we need to do to support XML DSig
>  > in C14N.
>
>  Which we got.
>
>  Resolved: We agree to add Schiller's proposal to RD. Seeing as we all
>  believe that our work on C14N would certainly meet that
> test. [I guess
>  that this means that this would also make it into the WD?] See:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Apr/
> 0096.html
>
>  Joseph: Had Workshop - I18N not so important, but don't change the
>  character compositions. Imagine collaberating on a document
> with signed
>  pieces with colleagues in Europe using editors that change character
>  composition.
>  [Should  we have a motherhood note that says to beware of
> taking signed
>  documents into text editors, if they want the C14N to be the same
>  before and after, and thus not break the security?]
>
>  3 levels of XML to Sign:
>
>  1) Byte level
>  2) Conversion to the standard encoding in use by the C14N Spec.
>  3) Full C14N, as described in the REC to be.
>
>  New Co-IETF/W3C working group is being formed for XML-DSig. We
>  note that the group has agreed that email discussions on C14N in
>  our mailing list can be summarized, or cross posted as needed
>  to the new group to facilitate coordination. We agreed on this
>  by an email vote, and realize that the XML-DSig mail list will
>  be public. Joseph is the informal liaison to this group, from that
>  group to be.
>
>  ACTION: James Tauber to put a req. in the RD about coordination
>  with soon to be XML-DSig WG, including whether to hold up last
>  call, PR, REC process after group has finished work, but XML-Dsig
>  WG needs us to wait. We noted no hard deadlines on C14N besides
>  the schedule for the completion of this WG.
>
>  Joseph: What do we mean by entity expansion in C14N version?
>  James: We expand all entities and put in place. No longer
>  know where the entity boundaries are in the C14N form of the
>  document.
>
>  ACTION: James Tauber to send early WD to Joseph for early review
>  of security issues.
>
>  Joseph: DOCTYPE not part of C14N version, doesn't this cause a
>  problem?
>
>  James: We use all the available DTD information to create the
>  C14N version, but there is no DTD in the C14N form.
>
>  Joel: Put motherhood note in WD to explain namespaces better
>  for document references than the reference to the DTD in the
>  DOCTYPE declaration.
>
>  Note in WD, that people may want to make docs standalone if
>  DTD availability is in doubt.
>
>  James Tauber: He is making a note with an Algorithm for making
>  any XML doc standalone='yes', after he has finished the first WD.
>  Joel: This could be a non-normative appendix in the spec.
>
>  James Tauber: Need responses to email on C14N for processor
>  conformance testing. See:
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Apr/0101.html

 James Tauber: Any need to worry about processing limited devices in RD?

 Joseph: Another motherhood note: If low on processing power use byte
 level conformance for XML-DSig.

 James Tauber: How small could a c14n processor be. Does anyone plan
 to build one? Volunteers?

 Joseph: What about extra processing by application?

 Joel: You can build it into a C14N processor if you want, but now it is
 not a conforming C14N processor, it's an application specific C14N
 processor.

 > Besides that we are awaiting a new RD, and a first WD from James
 > Tauber to review.

 RD was published just before the meeting. We can expect a first WD
 very soon.


End Forwarded Text ----
___________________________________________________________
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 Thursday, 29 April 1999 10:50:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 11:28:04 EDT