Re: ACTION-73 : Provide proposal to adapt Requirements scope

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

> Magnus
> 
> Thank you for providing this proposal.
> 
> 1) I would suggest placing XML Signature (section 5) before XML
> Encryption, (section 4) .

That's fine with me.

> 2) I would also like to keep the Principles section before section 3,
> Usage Scenarios.

I don't know what was intended for this section ...

> 3) Perhaps the title should be "XML Security Use Cases and
> Requirements" since v.next might become awkward at some point
> later...

I agree. I was contemplating this as well...

-- Magnus

> On Oct 1, 2008, at 12:57 PM, ext Magnus Nyström wrote:
> 
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Regarding ACTION-73, "Provide proposal to adapt Requirements scope":
> >
> > Based on the earlier discussion on this topic, I am suggesting the
> > following:
> >
> > Title:
> > ------
> > Change title from
> >
> > XML Signature and Canonicalization: Requirements and Design Notes
> >
> > to
> >
> > XML Security v.next Use Cases and Requirements
> >
> > Scope/Content:
> > --------------
> > In order to have a consistent treatment of XML Enc as well as XML
> > Sig and simplify the layout of the text, I suggest changing the
> > current scope/content to:
> >
> > 1 Scope
> > 2 Introduction
> > 3 Usage scenarios
> > 	XML signature incl. canonicalization
> > 	XML encryption
> > 4 XML Encryption Design Requirements
> >    4.1 Fundamentals
> >    4.2 Design Options
> >    4.3 Requirements
> > 5 XML Signature Design Requirements
> >  (to include canonicalization Design Requirements as already in the
> >   current Aug 20 draft)
> >    5.1 Fundamentals
> >    5.2 Design Options
> >    5.3 Requirements
> > 6 Acknowledgments
> > 7 References