- From: Glenn Marcy <gmarcy@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:40:18 -0500
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFE58EDC42.84613CD4-ON852570F8.005FE44A-852570F8.0061143A@us.ibm.com>
The following is a summary of the responses to the message [1] posted to the IETF/W3C XML Digital Signature Working Group asking for suggestions for how we might minimize disruptions introduced by a new version of Canonical XML. Boyer responded [2] with the suggestion to publish an errata to Canonical XML instead of a new revision. The main advantage seems to be in avoiding the introduction of a new algoritm identifier in the XML-Signature specification. Kahan responded [3] to Boyer that he felt that it was safer to introduce a new algorithm identifier, and that a Canonical XML 1.1 was therefore more appropriate. Boyer responded [4] to Kahan with a more detailed argument for producing an erratum instead of a 1.1 revision. Salz also responded [5] to Kahan supporting his position that producing a 1.1 revision was safer. Reagle responded [6] to Boyer [4] agreeing in spirit, but accepting that in this case while it might be messier to introduce a 1.1 revision it is the correct choice in this situation. Boyer responded [7] to Reagle with additional arguments for producing an erratum instead of a 1.1 revision. Salz responded [8] to Boyer that they agree to disagree and that a 1.1 revision will make interop problems easier to detect and resolve. Boyer responded [9] to Salz with additional rationale for producing an erratum instead of a 1.1 revision. Salz responded [10] to Boyer that he still feels strongly that an errata is the wrong choice. We have previously discussed this suggestion in the Core WG and reached a concensus that we were chartered to produce a Canonical XML 1.1 and not an erratum [11]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0019.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0020.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0021.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0022.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0023.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2005OctDec/0024.html [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0000.html [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0001.html [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0002.html [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2006JanMar/0003.html [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Nov/0004.html Regards, Glenn
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 17:40:35 UTC