W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Namespace Inclusions

From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 00:21:26 +0100
Message-ID: <18ec59cc0506211621626b5bde@mail.gmail.com>
To: jose.kahan@w3.org
Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, www-xkms@w3.org

>Will either striking the text or changing it to request the use of exc-c14n
>affect existing implementations?

No it won't.

I followed the advise in paragraphs [89] and [90]  of Part 1 which
kept me out of trouble.

Like Matt I don't find Section [60] in Part 2 particularly
informative.  I think I would have ended up with the same result/code
even if it hadn't been there.  I other words I didn't pay much/any
attention to it.

>>       XKMS messages that will be embedded in SOAP documents SHOULD be
>>       signed using exc-c14n.
>
>I also think that mentioning exc-c14n is better than just striking out the
>text.

Replacing the existing paragraph [60] of Part 2 with above seems fine to me.

Regards
Tommy

On 6/20/05, Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> A question for developers.
> 
> Following Rich's comment:
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:42:21AM -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
> >
> > I think that since we no longer use QName's in XKMS, that this is not
> > much of an issue any more.  Also, since WS-Security and WS-I, et al.,
> > are now all recommending exclusive-c14n, which doesn't have the problems
> > caused by standard c14n and embedding content, we should strike this.
> >
> > It's not really an editorial change, although it can be treated as such,
> > since it's removing a limitation.  We can either remove the text, and
> > let folks like ws-i, etc., advise what to do, or we can explicitly say
> >       XKMS messages that will be embedded in SOAP documents SHOULD be
> >       signed using exc-c14n.
> 
> Will either striking the text or changing it to request the use of exc-c14n
> affect existing implementations? If the answer is yes, I prefer to defer
> this modification to a subsequent edition of the spec.
> 
> I also think that mentioning exc-c14n is better than just striking out the
> text.
> 
> Tommy, Vamsi, ... comments?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -jose
> 
> 
> BodyID:107510499.2.n.logpart (stored separately)
> 
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 23:21:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:24 GMT