- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 18:46:42 -0400
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
The revised text in the editors draft of XML Signature in Section 4.3.3.2 The Reference Processing Model [1] says "In this specification, a 'same-document' reference is defined as a URI-Reference that does not contain a URI. [URI]" This is very clear in the context of section 4 of RFC 2396 but may not be so obvious in the context of RFC 3986, yet another related proposal is to remove reference to RFC 2396 and replace it with a reference to RFC 3986. Thus I propose the following revision of this sentence: "In this specification, a 'same-document' reference is defined as a URI-Reference that does not contain a URI, in other words a hash sign ('#') followed by a fragment identifier [URI]." In addition I suggest we change the References section to replace the reference for URI with RFC 3986. Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax. T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter. January 2005. http:// www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt and replace "RFC 2396" with "RFC 3986" in section 4.3.3.1 (2 places). regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec- ReferenceProcessingModel regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jul 17, 2007, at 10:51 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > > Section 4.3.3.2, Reference Processing Model > http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec- > ReferenceProcessingModel > > As an aside, there's some language in 4.3.3.2 that references the > URI spec for the definition of a "same-document URI-Reference." > > Unfortunately, the meaning of that has changed between the URI spec > that is referenced in xmldsig-core and the currently valid one (RFC > 2396 vs. RFC 3986): Same-document references are now (in RFC 3986) > defined in terms of the base URI; the purely syntactic definition > ("URI references with an empty URI", i.e., just a fragment > identifier) from RFC 2396 is no longer there. > > However, XML Signature relies on that syntactic definition and > actually replays it in the specification text to a large extent. I'd > therefore propose to explicitly say that, for the purposes of > xmldsig-core, we mean a URI Reference with no URI part (thereby > replaying the syntactic definition from 2396); the current editor's > draft includes that change. > > We can then go on to bump the normative reference from 2396 to 3986. > > Regards, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> >
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 22:46:53 UTC