- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:58:20 +0200
- To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org>
* Martin Chapman wrote: >The following WS-Choreo last call issues that you raised have been >resolved as follows. Please confirm you agree with the resolutions asap. >All editorial changes can be found in the latest editorial draft: >http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/edcopies/cdl/cdl.html >Issue 958: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=958 >Issue 961: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=961 >Issue 962: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=962 >Issue 965: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=965 >Issue 969: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=969 >Issue 970: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=970 >Issue 972: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=972 Sounds good, thanks. >Issue 963: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=963 I don't really see a difference in style? >Issue 968: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=968 Note that http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype ietf-types review is required for these types to be registered. Normally this would be done along with the last call announcement, I am not sure whether there is a process for doing it later, W3C's IETF Liaisons Dan Connolly and Philippe Le Hégaret might be able to provide guidance here. I am not satisfied by the current registration template, there should probably be a "." after "This document", the "Person and email address to contact for further information" should probably not be Yves but a more generic address (like web-human@) or a mailing list, and the "Security considerations" are inadequate. I would expect the security considerations section to conform to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3552.txt section 5 and discuss e.g. whether application/cdl+xml documents may have a http://w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/ digital signature and how application/cdl+xml implementations that do not support XML DSig behave when processing a document (e.g., would the signature be ignored, would the implementation refuse to process the document, etc.) Simply saying that CDL users don't have to consider any security issue but those that apply to all XML formats is probably worse than having no security considerations section at all. regards, -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2005 05:58:29 UTC