Re: References in XML Signature PER

Mohamed

Thanks for providing the information regarding the Unicode reference  
in the XML Signature, Second Edition PER.

We discussed this issue on today's working group call and came to the  
conclusion that we should remove the Unicode reference from the  
document [1]. This should remove the possibility of any  
misinterpretation of the reference and not raise any false implications.

The rationale is that the reference is not normative, not referred to  
in the document, and not very precise as it refers to a web page and  
may be misinterpreted. The Working Group felt that the best approach  
is to allow the XML specification to refer to Unicode appropriately.

This decision by the working group should close this issue.

If you have any concerns please respond to this email including the  
public-xmlsec-maintwg mail address as a recipient. If we hear nothing  
we will assume that the response is acceptable, but would prefer an  
acknowledgment that this is acceptable.

Thank you

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#item08

On Apr 30, 2008, at 4:27 AM, ext Innovimax W3C wrote:

> Sure, the problem is consistency between the Unicode version  
> Referenced in XML 1.0 Specification and the Unicode version  
> referenced directly in the spec
>
> Indeed, XML 1.0 Specification Fourth Edition references Unicode 2  
> AND Unicode 3.2, and also ISO/IEC 10646 as normative reference
>
> For XML Signature, there is no distinction between normative  
> reference and non normative, so it is assumed that all are  
> normative !!
>
> Which imply that
>
> for example the reference to UAX #15 (called NFC TR15) is a bit old  
> (1999) but is consistent with Unicode 3.2
>
> but your reference to Unicode is not sufficiently precise (you're  
> pointing to the home page) which could lead to problem if someone  
> wants to points to recent Unicode version
>
> So may be the solution is just to split reference between,  
> normative and informative
>
> Regards,
>
> Mohamed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Frederick Hirsch  
> <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> I  believe updating an  XML 1.0, Second Edition [1] reference to  
> XML 1.0 Fourth Edition [2] in XML Signature, Second Edition PER [3]  
> may be useful and appropriate.
>
> (1) It appears that the Fourth Edition is mostly editorial changes  
> for clarity, as well as incorporation of errata [4]. One of these  
> errata corresponds to changes in XML Signature Second Edition, an  
> update of the URI reference from RFC 2732 to RFC 3986.
> "This fourth edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience  
> to readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated  
> errata (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-3e-errata) to  
> the Third Edition of XML 1.0, dated 4 February 2004. In addition,  
> the markup introduced in the third edition, to clarify when  
> prescriptive keywords are used in the formal sense defined in [IETF  
> RFC 2119], has been modified to better match the intent of [IETF  
> RFC 2119]"
>
> (2) Likewise XML 1.0 Third edition incorporates editorial changes  
> for clarity and incorporation of errata [5].
>
> "This third edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience  
> to readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated  
> errata (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata) to  
> the Second Edition of XML 1.0, dated 6 October 2000. In addition,  
> markup has been introduced on a significant portion of the  
> prescriptions of the specification, clarifying when prescriptive  
> keywords such as must, should and may are used in the formal sense  
> defined in [IETF RFC 2119]"
>
> Do members of this group, in particular those involved with the XML  
> Core WG, believe it would be appropriate to update the XML 1.0  
> reference in XML Signature, Second Edition to the Fourth Edition of  
> XML, and would doing so be viewed as editorial or a more  
> substantive change?
>
> Would such a change have an impact on implementors?
>
> It may be that XML Signature is mostly orthogonal to those changes,  
> in particular since the XML Fourth edition does not represent a new  
> version of XML,  and thus this could be treated as editorial
>
> (3) A similar issue may also apply to Namespaces  in XML 1.0 [6]  
> which have been updated to Namespaces  in XML 1.0, Second Edition  
> [7], where the errata includes primarily  the deprecation of  
> relative URIs in namespace declarations [8]. What are thoughts on  
> updating this reference, treating it as editorial?
>
> It seems these changes are editorial in nature. Do you have  
> insights or views on this?
>
> I'm not sure I understand that the unicode reference needs  
> updating, any thoughts on that reference?
>
> Thanks
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PER-xmldsig-core-20080326/
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PER-xml-20060614/
>
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/
>
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
>
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
>
> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#errata10
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> we've received one comment about XML Signature PER which requests a
> review of the references, specifically XML 2nd Edition and Unicode.
>
> Forwarded with permission.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  +33-4-89063488
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2008-04-06 13:10:01 +0000, WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax 
> +w3c@gmail.com wrote:
> From: "WBS Mailer on behalf of innovimax+w3c@gmail.com"
>        <webmaster@w3.org>
> To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com,
>        team-security-activity-proposal-review@w3.org
> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:10:01 +0000
> Subject: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: XML Signature Syntax and
>        Processing  (Second Edition)?? is W3C Proposed Recommendation'
> Reply-To: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com
> List-Id: <team-security-activity-proposal-review.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level:
> Archived-At:
>        <http://www.w3.org/mid/wbs- 
> f743d3cf28a5f52bede4713530dde6b5@cgi.w3.o
>        rg>
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6
>
>
>
> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for  
> Review:
> XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)
>  is W3C Proposed Recommendation' (Advisory Committee) for INNOVIMAX by
> Mohamed ZERGAOUI.
>
> Regarding the "XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)"
> specification, the reviewer  suggests changes, and only supports
> publication as a Recommendation if the changes are adopted.
>
>
> Additional comments about the specification:
>   The references are almost all out of synch and may introduce burden
> because of misinterpretation, mainly due to references to old Unicode
> publication directly and to XML second edition.
>
> I ask that all reference should be carefully weighted to not introduce
> more problems than solutions
>
>
> The reviewer's organization:
>   - produces products addressed by this specification
>
> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/xmlsigper2008/ until 2008-04-30.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  The Automatic WBS Mailer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Innovimax SARL
> Consulting, Training & XML Development
> 9, impasse des Orteaux
> 75020 Paris
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> http://www.innovimax.fr
> RCS Paris 488.018.631
> SARL au capital de 10.000 €