- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:48:21 -0500
- To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: gmarcy@us.ibm.com, Paul Grosso <pgrosso@ptc.com>, ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
Glenn, Paul The XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG reviewed yesterday (Friday 10 November) the set of changes from our joint meeting and have a few additional changes to refine the proposal. In addition we believe it might be useful to update the examples in C14N11 to use xml:id consistently. I propose to send you a red-line on Wednesday 14 November, outlining these changes. Will this work with your planned schedule for updating C14N11? Thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > Glenn > > Attached is a revised red-line of changes to C14N11, based on our > discussion during the XML Core F2F meeting today (I also changed > the order of bullets in 2.4 since knowledge of the changes to > Remove Dot Segments is required to perform the RFC 5.2.2 processing). > > I believe we agreed that these changes should be incorporated into > an update to the C14N11 CR draft for review. > > Thanks > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > > On Nov 5, 2007, at 7:52 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > >> 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> >> >> <c14n11-2-4-redline.pdf> > > > <c14n11-2-4-redline-v2.doc> > <c14n11-2-4-redline-v2.pdf>
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2007 13:49:14 UTC