W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org > December 2007

Re: C14N 1.1 comment on Appendix A

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:12:59 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>, www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20071218141259.GO414@iCoaster.does-not-exist.org>

The XML Security Specification Maintenance WG just resolved that it
is satisfied with the resolution of this comment.

Thanks,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>




On 2007-12-11 17:16:13 -0500, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> From: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
> Cc: XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>,
> 	www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:16:13 -0500
> Subject: C14N 1.1 comment on Appendix A
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6
> 
> [Resending with corrected subject line.]
> 
> Thomas et al.,
> 
> At 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization-comments/20
> 07Oct/0000
> you sent a comment to the C14N 1.1 comment list that 
> included the following issue:
> 
> Appendix A was found to be complex to the point of being
> unimplementable.
> 
> 
> We have replaced the algorithm in Appendix A with a list 
> of examples and have done some rewording in the prose of 
> section 3.2 (as suggested by the XML Security Specifications 
> Maintenance WG) to explain the algorithm.
> 
> For the purposes of the Disposition of Comments, do you accept
> this resolution of your comment?
> 
> Please reply to the www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
> as soon as feasible so that we can complete our DoC.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> paul
> 
> Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 14:13:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2007 14:13:08 GMT