- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:01:29 -0500
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- CC: "Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, ext Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
This certainly WFM. TLR, PLH - what needs to be done to make this happen? -AB On 12/14/11 2:21 PM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: this seems logical, in that any outcome for ECC (ranging from continued inclusion to removal) would have no impact on widget signature given this lack of specific dependency. On 12/14/11 2:12 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: I personally think this is the route of least pain. Widgets Dig Sig just says to do whatever XML Dig Sigs says to do, and it has no explicit dependency on ECC. Furthermore, no widget engine supports ECC to my knowledge and no content has been signed with ECC to my knowledge. Using ECC is certainly not something that is explicitly recommended in Widgets Dig Sig: On 12/13/11 4:14 PM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: An other one was for the Director to decide to move the document forward anyway because W-DigSig doesn't depend on ECC. Thomas, any suggestion?
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 20:04:11 UTC