- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:47:47 +0000
- To: <cemartin@mitre.org>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Cynthia I suggest we leave the named references and they are rather than shifting to RFC#, as sometimes RFC#s change as references are obsoleted. Magnus did raise the same comment. I'd argue it is a style issue, and I don't recommend making such a broad change to all the documents at the last minute. It looks like we need fixes for the last two you mention, o and p. What should we do about X509v3 reference, do others agree with this change? thanks for doing this regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:38 AM, ext Martin, Cynthia E. wrote: > Fredrick > > My comments for the DSIG v1.1 references are below. We can discuss at > todays meeting if necessary. > > Cynthia > > a. The reference for RFC 3986 is listed as URI rather than the RFC > number, as with some of the other RFC references. This is not wrong, just > inconsistent. I recommend using the RFC number > b. The reference for RFC 2141 is listed as URN. Same as above. > c. The reference for RFC 2104 is listed as HMAC. Same as above. > d. The reference for RFC 2616 is listed as HTTP11. Same as above. > e. Reference [XPTR-XPOINTER] is listed as January 2001, but the > document says 11 September 2001. > f. The reference for RFC 3061 is listed as URN-OID. Same as above. > g. The reference for RFC 6090 is listed as ECC-ALGS. Same as above. > h. The reference for RFC 4514 is listed as LDAP-DN. Same as above. > i. The reference [X509V3] does not list a web site. The site to buy the > document is > http://webstore.iec.ch/servlet/GetPreview?id=40633&path=info_isoiec10021-8%7 > Bed2.0%7Den.pdf; however, the latest version is 2008, not the 1999 version > listed in the reference. > j. The reference for RFC 2560 is listed as OCSP. Same as above. > k. RFC 1321, MD-5, is not listed in the references. > l. The reference for RFC 3629 is listed as UTF-8. Same as above > m. The reference for RFC 2781 is listed as UFT-16. Same as above. In > addition, it is listed under informational references, while UTF-8 is > normative. Both appear in the same sentence. > n. The reference for RFC 4086 is listed as RANDOM. Same as above. > o. RFC 4949 uses different web link from all other RFC's: > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4949.html as opposed to > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4949.txt. > p. The reference [RELAXNG-SCHEMA] lists the index of ISO documents > rather than the link for the document: > http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c052348_ISO_IEC_197 > 57-2_2008(E).zip >
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 13:48:37 UTC