Re: ACTION-336: Reference update for XML Signature

Agreed on the changes, and +1 to consistency.

----- Original Message -----
From: public-xmlsec-request@w3.org <public-xmlsec-request@w3.org>
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>; public-xmlsec@w3.org Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Cc: Martin, Cynthia E. <cemartin@mitre.org>
Sent: Fri Jul 24 09:16:03 2009
Subject: RE: ACTION-336: Reference update for XML Signature

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>