C14N simplification next steps

I think we can now consider to take the following concrete steps based  
on Pratik's proposals [1] [2] and our discussion

1. Update requirements document with material from Patrik's message  
regarding the steps and limits on how far we process [1].

2. Create a new C14N2 document by editing the C14n11 specification [3]  
as follows:

1. Revise abstract and introduction to clarify the change in model,  
performance and simplifications

2. Revise Section 2 to update Data Model and Processing Model per  
Pratik's note. Maintaining the hash of namespaces is somewhat  
different from the current processing model that discusses what is  
emitted. Perhaps a new section on implementation considerations is  
needed.

Do we still need the subsection on document order?

3. Are we able to simplify section 2.4 Document subsets?

4. In the examples section 3,

a. The examples in 3.1 through 3.6 are all complete tree examples, so  
should have the same result with change of model , so no change here

b. Examples 3.7 and 3.8 are selections of the entire document with the  
exclusion of element e2 and re-inclusion of e3, thus this should also  
produce the same result with the new model. We need new text to  
clarify this.

Which interop tests from the original XML Signature interop  [4] would  
fail with the new C14N model?

Which other canonicalization considerations do we need to discuss?

Does anyone have real-world examples that fail with the simplification  
model?

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/performance/c14n-subtree/constrained-cases-description.pdf

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009May/0004.html

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11/

[4] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html
and
http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/10/10-c14n-interop.html

Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 18:27:14 UTC