- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:41:15 -0400
- To: xml-encryption@w3.org
- Cc: chairs@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Eve.Maler@East.Sun.COM, Marc Chanliau <mchanliau@netegrity.com>, fallside@us.ibm.com
Today, the two month CR period for the encryption specifications closes [1]. We don't have any oustanding issues [2], and the interop matrix has four implementations; this satisfies our exit criteria. However, we also identified two other issues for feedback. The first issue is performance. I tried to specify a performance profile without much success given folks said it's too variable given the device, language, and application requirements. So we ended with a "satisfactory performance" requirement at the implementors' discretion, and I've had three positive reports and no negative ones. The second issue was a request for positive or negative experiences in an actual application scenario: has anyone use xenc in their application and encountered un-remediable problems that needs fixing? Particularly when it comes to instance validity and the Decryption Transform for XML Signature [5]? I haven't heard any reports on this one way or the other. And while I like to think "no news is good news" some explicitly positive reports would be useful too! For example, "Yes, we've used this with XML Signature to encrypt and sign a section of a document (e.g., SOAP, XML form, XHTML document) without difficulty." So this is your last chance to speak up! [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xmlenc-core-20020304/ "We expect to meet all requirements of that report within the two month Candidate Recommendation period (closing April 25)" [2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/11/last-call-issues.html [3] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2002/02-xenc-interop.html [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xmlenc-core-20020304/ [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xmlenc-decrypt-20020304
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 16:41:28 UTC