- From: Martin, Cynthia E. <cemartin@mitre.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:06:55 -0400
- To: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
- CC: "Martin, Cynthia E." <cemartin@mitre.org>
Sorry about that- I wasn't clear. I wanted to know if your proposal for canonicalization transform simplification would fit into this category. Regards, Cynthia -----Original Message----- From: Pratik Datta [mailto:pratik.datta@oracle.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:31 PM To: XMLSec WG Public List Cc: Martin, Cynthia E. Subject: Fwd: Minimal Canonicalization Forwarding Cynthia's email to the group. Cynthia, I don't think I understood your email. What do you mean by "your idea of limiting these" ? Which idea are you talking about? As discussed in the F2F, I will be writing up a draft spec of C14n v2.0, and XML signature v2.0. The C14N algorithm will be "parameterized" - e.g. it will have parameters for trimWhitespace, sortAttributes, rewritePrefixes etc. Passing in false for all these parameters will result in a minimal canonicalization, whereas passing in true will result in a very robust canonicalization that can survive shredding and reconstruction. I am also thinking of assigning names to sets of parameter values, i.e.we could define the name "minimialCanononicalization" to be trimWhitespace=false, sortAttribute=false, .... Pratik Martin, Cynthia E. wrote: > Good Morning, > > I am a new member of the working group and I was just reviewing RFC 4051 during the call on 5/12. The RFC says the following: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4051.txt?number=4051 > > 2.4. Minimal Canonicalization > > Thus far two independent interoperable implementations of Minimal > Canonicalization have not been announced. Therefore, when XML > Digital Signature was advanced from Proposed Standard [RFC3075] to > Draft Standard [RFC3275], Minimal Canonicalization was dropped from > the standards track documents. However, there is still interest in > Minimal Canonicalization, indicating its possible future use. For > its definition, see [RFC3075], Section 6.5.1. > > Could your idea of limiting these update this RFC? Just wondering. > > Regards, Cynthia > >
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 21:07:35 UTC