RE: ACTION-519: review c14n 2.0 draft

• From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
• Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:25:24 -0400
• To: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <005501cadb15$27c0bfa0$77423ee0$@2@osu.edu>

A small supplement to my review that I forgot to mention...

We orginally had a c14n option for whether the signature was enveloped or
not, which we agreed to remove because it seemed to be implicit. In fact, it
probably can't go into c14n anyway because that's nominally independent of
the signing process anyway.

What I do think we're missing, probably in the Signature spec under the
Selection portion, rather than this spec, is an explicit statement that the
Signature element containing the CanonicalizationMethod element that's being
processed is an implicit "Exclusion" provided to the c14n 2.0 step.

That works "automatically" since if the Signature isn't enveloped, it won't
affect processing and if it is, it gets properly excluded.

-- Scott

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 14:26:01 UTC