- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:04:58 -0400
- To: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Does the Requirements editors draft reflect the recent changes we have been making to the editors drafts of the various documents? http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlsec-reqs/Overview.html Are there any volunteers to ensure that the requirements document is complete and correct related to Streaming, Elliptic curve, Derived Keys, Algorithm requirements, and other recent specification changes ? Going forward, whenever we change our drafts, I'd like to make sure the requirements document correctly reflects any working group decision. Perhaps when proposing a specification change WG members can also propose the corresponding requirements addition or clarification if needed. Can we dispense with the following issues as noted? ISSUE-61 characterize what is meant by streaming and associated requirements Volunteer needed to take action to review this issue and make sure requirements and use case document is complete and correct. ISSUE-63 Namespace requirements: undeclarations, QNames, use of partial content in new contexts Proposal, resolve to add requirement that QNames in content must be supported. Resolve not to support namespace undeclarations given status of XML and unclear need. ISSUE-65 Define requirements on transforms Volunteer needed to take action to review this issue and make sure requirements and use case document is complete and correct. ISSUE-66 Which constraints can we impose on xml data model for simplification Volunteer needed to take action to review this issue and make sure requirements and use case document is complete and correct. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Chair XML Security WG
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 17:05:44 UTC