W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: updated editor's draft

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:59:18 -0400
To: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
Cc: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070730205918.GE2974@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-07-30 15:38:29 -0400, Sean Mullan wrote:

>> I thought the answer to that was "no", sticking to our "minimal
>> changes" mantra.

> Right, but I don't know of any XML Signature implementations that
> don't support Exclusive C14N. And we're adding a new requirement
> for C14N 1.1 which is as much of a change in my opinion.

Well, that is a change that was called out in our charter.

I realize that we could add the reference to Exclusive without
changing conformance, and agree that having a full catalogue of
relevant algorithms and IDs would be very useful; I just think we
need to draw the line somewhere for this iteration.

Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 20:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:40 UTC