- From: Martin, Cynthia E. <cemartin@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:16:03 -0400
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "public-xmlsec@w3.org Public List" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
- CC: "Martin, Cynthia E." <cemartin@mitre.org>
Thomas, I agree with your changes. I noticed that some documents reference one way and other documents reference the other way. Consistency is preferred. Regards, Cynthia -----Original Message----- From: public-xmlsec-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xmlsec-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:30 AM To: public-xmlsec@w3.org Public List Cc: Thomas Roessler Subject: ACTION-336: Reference update for XML Signature I've spent some time updating the XML Signature references, based on Cynthia's work. (Thanks a lot for that!) References that I think are informational (which Cynthia had as normative): - DOM - RFC 4086 (randomness requirements) - RFC 4949 (Internet Security Glossary) - SOAP (therefore, no need to update that one beyond SOAP 1.1, which an example refers to) - XML Signature 2002 (this reference is specific to the previous Recommendation, hence no update needed) References that I think are normative (which Cynthia had as informative): - URN - URN-OID - X509v3 - XML Media Types - XPointer element() scheme - XPointer Framework - XSLT 1.0 References that should not be updated: - SOAP - XML Signature 2002 - RFC 4055 seems to augment, but not supersede RFC 3279 - XPath 1.0 - XSL 1.0 - XSLT 1.0 References that can be dropped: - XHTML 1.0 - XLink Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 16:16:39 UTC