FW: Proposal for changes to C14N11 related to XMLSec interop feedback

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com] 
Sent: Monday, 2007 November 05 19:53
To: Frederick Hirsch
Cc: Grosso, Paul; ext Thomas Roessler; XML Canonicalization Comments;
XMLSec XMLSec
Subject: Re: Proposal for changes to C14N11 related to XMLSec interop
feedback

resend with PDF

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

> Paul, Thomas
>
> I have put together a concrete proposed set of changes to C14N11 -  
> this may help with our discussion tomorrow. This is a rough draft  
> for discussion and has not been reviewed by the XMLSec WG.
>
> I  attach a PDF red-line that attempts to implement all of our  
> feedback to C14N11 [1] on the C14N11 CR draft [2]. Line numbers  
> refer to the PDF.
>
> The rationale of the changes is as follows:
>
> 1. Line 11, remove text to revert C14N11 to 1.0 wording, as agreed  
> in first feedback item
>
> 2.  Line 37-60 attempt to address feedback on xml:base processing  
> as follows
>
> 2a. Wrote new brief introduction to xml:base fixup processing.  
> Remove redundant descriptions, as a result the text now only refers  
> to removed  *elements* requiring fixup. Added parenthetical to  
> emphasize need for contiguous missing elements, and to indicated  
> how this applies to updated example.
>
> 2b renamed "join URI" to "join-URI-References"
>
> 2c Added explicit warning re removal of elements vs attributes  
> (lines 61-64)
>
> 2c moved description of join-URI-References function to follow  
> general xml:base fixup discussion. Minor editorial updates
>
> 2c) removed reference to Appendix A, I am suggesting that Appendix  
> A be removed. Last bullet covers the key point at line 79-83
>
> 3. Updated example for 3.8 as suggested by XMLSec. (lines 92-96)
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-canonicalization- 
> comments/2007Oct/0000.html
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2007, at 1:12 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> -----
>>
>> From: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
>> To: www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org, Thomas Roessler  
>> <tlr@w3.org>
>> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:59:02 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Interop meeting report
>> X-Spam-Level:
>> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> I wanted to archive this email, and I can't post directly
>> to the XMLSEC list, so please forward this message to
>> public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org.
>>
>> paul
>>
>> ---
>>
>>> The XML Security Specifications Maintenance Working Group
>>> held an interoperability testing meeting for the
>>> XML Digital Signatures and Canonical XML 1.1 specifications
>>> in Mountain View, California, on 27 September 2007.
>>
>> The XML Core WG is very appreciative of these efforts
>> and this feedback.
>>
>>> The following three issues with the Canonical XML 1.1
>>> specification were identified.
>>>
>>> 1. The change back to language from C14N 1.0 that is
>>> suggested in [1] should be applied, as it matches
>>> implementation behavior.
>>
>> Agreed, we will revert to 1.0 wording.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. The fix-up for the xml:base attribute that is specified in
>>> section 2.4 [2] was not implemented interoperably.
>>>
>>> A single implementation was found to have implemented the
>>> specification's normative text correctly.  Four implementations
>>> were found to be consistent with the example in section 3.8 [3].
>>> The example in section 3.8 was found to be inconsistent with the
>>> normative text.
>>>
>>> After discussion, there was consensus that the normative text is
>>> correct (but in need of clarification), and that the example
>>> provided in the specification is indeed incorrect.
>>
>> Thank you for your clear explanation and examples.  We agree
>> with your feedback, and we have directed the editor to correct
>> the examples and come up with improved wording.
>>
>> Once we have a new draft of this section, we will share it
>> with you for your comments.
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Appendix A was found to be complex to the point of being
>>> unimplementable.
>>
>>> We recommend to rewrite Appendix A in a clear and simple
>>> fashion. Where the (commendable!) aim of staying close to
>>> RFC 3986's language gets into the way of clarity or
>>> simplicity, the latter should be given priority.
>>
>> Being complex to the point of being unimplementable is
>> certainly an unfortunate situation.
>>
>> However, RFC 3986 is very complicated.  People have been
>> arguing about what 2386 and 3986 really say for years, and
>> it's unlikely to stop.  It's been said that, if you think
>> you understand this stuff and you aren't Roy Fielding, you
>> are misleading yourself.
>>
>> Given that, we are very loath to attempt to include wording
>> that is not based on 3986 as there would be almost no
>> guarantee that it would be correct.
>>
>> If there are errors in the description in Appendix A in
>> the C14N 1.1 CR, we certainly need to correct them.  If
>> there is a minor wording change that we can all agree
>> maintains the correct meaning and improves its clarity,
>> we are all for that.
>>
>> But unless we can get Roy Fielding to approve it, we are
>> very loath to replace Appendix A with a completely
>> different algorithm.
>>
>> paul
>> for the XML Core WG
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Aug/ 
>>> 0018
>>> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11/#DocSubsets
>>> 3. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11/#Example-DocSubsetsXMLAttrs
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>
>
> <c14n11-2-4-redline.doc>