- From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:37:44 -0400
- To: ext Peter Saint-Andre <Peter.SaintAndre@webex.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Peter Thanks for noting this. Thomas and I spoke about this, it should not be a concern if the RFC moves forward before XML Encryption 1.1 does - given the current plans we expect this to be the case. However I'll enter an issue so that we are aware later in the process in case this does not happen regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jul 10, 2009, at 4:37 PM, ext Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > This looks good to me. > > What is the import of having a normative reference to DRAFT-HOUSLEY- > KW-PAD > (which not yet approved)? I would assume there is a general W3C > policy on > downrefs of this kind, but I don't know what it is. > > Peter > > On 7/8/09 8:23 AM, "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> > wrote: > >> I made additional updates to XML Encryption 1.1 references based on >> review by Cynthia: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Jul/0018.html >> >> I made all the changes as proposed, except for the following: >> >> (1) I removed the old XML Signature reference, retaining only >> reference for Signature 1.1, naming it XML-DSIG. I assume it makes >> more sense for XML Encryption 1.1 to reference Signature 1.1, let me >> know if this is a problem. >> >> (2) Used http links for RFCs, not ftp links >> >> (3) Did not add RFC 5335 as update to MIME (list in addition), since >> it is an experimental RFC. >> >> Please review the XML Encryption 1.1 references for correctness. I >> also update explain.html and the redline: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlenc-core-11/Overview_diff.htm#sec-Refe >> rences-Normative >> >> This should conclude ACTION-328 >> >> Thanks >> >> regards, Frederick >> >> Frederick Hirsch >> Nokia >> >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 13:38:30 UTC