Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] RDF Canonicalization (Issue #855)

Hi @gkellogg @dlongley @yamdan @philarcher @peacekeeper

We (@hadleybeeman and I) reviewed this in our virtual face-to-face this week. We like the direction of the work, and the design is sensible.

We noticed you haven't yet filled out the privacy and security questionnaire. Understanding that not all of the questions may be relevant, please could you do this?

Also, we see that you are using quads instead of triples and adding in the graph name once? It sounds more complex — but we suspect you have considered this at length. We are just interested in your thought process here. (This is the sort of thing we normally expect to see in an [explainer](https://github.com/w3ctag/tag.w3.org/blob/main/explainers/template.md).) 

Also, we'd love to see the explainer when you've updated your explainer to bring it in line with the spec. 

And finally, what happens if the hashing algorithm becomes insecure? It might be helpful to put a comment in the security considerations section to advise implementers in the future to consider that possibility.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/855#issuecomment-1664350113
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/855/1664350113@github.com>