- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0500
- To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@ptc.com>, ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, XML Canonicalization Comments <www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org>, XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <7B8D7697-742D-4C23-82B3-A7EF39EDDD6C@nokia.com>
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>
Attachments
- application/pdf attachment: c14n11-2-4-redline.pdf
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 00:53:40 UTC