- From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:08:43 -0400
- To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
- Cc: public-xmlsec@w3.org
Though I maintain that constraining 2.0 canonicalization for SignedInfo could be useful in specific (e.g. Magic-like Signatures), I am fine with closing this Issue. Ed On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 20:52 +0200, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote: > ISSUE-183 Constrain 2.0 SignedInfo canonicalization choice for 2.0 model? [1] > > I think this issue evolved since it was first noted. Initially it was part of Ed's proposal, "XML Signature Strawman Proposal" (slide 14 onwards), Ed Simon, 2007 November: http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/f2f-2007-11-08/XML-Signature-Proposal-2.pdf > > Subsequently we decided not to change the structure of XML Signature schema significantly in order to maintain backward compatibility (the 2.0 mode approach). > > This left the issue as a question of whether in 2.0 we should constrain the canonicalization method choice for SignedInfo, and I believe we decided not to do so. > > Proposal: close this issue with no change required > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/183 > > This should compete ACTION-653 > > > -- ======================================== Ed Simon, XMLsec Inc. 613-726-9645 edsimon@xmlsec.com
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 14:09:17 UTC