- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:41:18 -0500
- To: ext Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- CC: ext Andrey Nazarov <Andrey.Nazarov@oracle.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcos, On Jan/31/2011 2:18 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: > > On 1/31/11 7:52 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Andrey - on January 26, Marcos proposed changing the c14n algorithm in >> [1] and [2] and notified the group in [3] that he updated the Editor's >> Draft [ED] to reflect his proposal. He included rationale in [1]. >> >> Marcos - in what way(s) does your proposal break the signer and >> validator conformance classes as defined in the June 2010 CR [CR]? > > It would remove all references and dependencies on XML > Canonicalization 1.1 in favor of XML Canonicalization 1.0. Explicit > <tranform> to Canonicalization 1.1 would no longer be needed (XML Dig > Sig just defaults to 1.0). Everything else stays the same. If an "old" widget is signed according to [CR] i.e. uses the ExC14N algorithm and a "new" validator is implemented according to the proposed changes (now reflected in [ED), then what happens when this new validator process this old widget? Based on what you and I just discussed in IRC, I believe the validation will fail. Correct? It would be useful if we had at least a general idea regarding the number of widgets "in the wild" that are signed using the ExC14N algorithm. If anyone has relevant data, please send it to this mail list. -Art Barstow >> [1] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0247.html >> [2] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0250.html >> [3] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0254.html >> [ED] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ >> [CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-widgets-digsig-20100624/#conformance
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 12:42:12 UTC