- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:49:14 +0100
- To: <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Which of the following 2.0 issues can be closed? For those that are open, if you have an action associated with any of the issues can you please update the issue with that associated action ? I'd like to review the status of these issues on tomorrow's call. Thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Chair XML Security WG [[ ISSUE-86 Document performance criterial and benchmarks 2009-01-14 XML Signature 2.0 0 ISSUE-91 ECC can't be REQUIRED 2009-01-26 XML Security - General 0 ISSUE-122 Explain why peformance improvements and rationale, relationship to earlier work 2009-05-12 XML Signature 2.0 0 ISSUE-132 Keep 2.0 xenc transform feature in sync with signature 2.0 2009-06-02 XML Signature 2.0 0 ISSUE-140 Clarify how XPath is interpreted relative to entire document and ds:Reference 2009-09-08 XML Signature 2.0 0 ISSUE-156 Threat for signature from use of namespace prefixes with corresponding unsigned namespace declarations leading to wrapping like attacks 2009-11-17 XML Signature 2.0 0 ISSUE-159 Address/document potential security issues due to mismatch of security and application processing, including wrapping attacks ISSUE-198 How to determine if arbitrary text content contains prefixes? Might need to do a lot of searching because text content can be large 2010-04-27 Canonical XML Version 2.0 0 ISSUE-202 How to define parameter sets in document, vs conformance criteria 2010-05-11 0 ISSUE-204 Integrated recognition of QName content 2010-05-25 Canonical XML Version 2.0 0 ISSUE-206 For c14n20 profile - clarify that conformance implies support, but also changes to xml or what must be explicitly specified ISSUE-208 List 2.0 algorithms in algorithms cross-reference 2010-06-29 0 ISSUE-210 Restructuring of Signature 2.0 "uncomplicate" section 4.4.3 by 2010-08-24 0 ISSUE-211 Stand alone version of Streaming XPath Profile versus diff, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Aug/0055.html 2010-08-24 0 ISSUE-213 XML Signature 2.0 needs precise definitions of Included/ExcludedXPath elements 2010-08-31 0 ISSUE-215 C14N2 conformance - optional parameters, profiles, etc ISSUE-217 XML Signature 2.0 needs 2.0 mode examples, e.g. , verification, selection etc. 2010-09-07 0 ISSUE-218 For canonical xml 2.0 is eliminating inclusive c14n an issue for xml:base etc (which use cases are impacted), and should QName aware be mandatory 2010-11-16 0 ISSUE-219 Status of Reference Type attribute in 2.0? 2010-12-07 0 ISSUE-220 Clarify handling of comments and processing instructions in 2.0 mode , currently in terms of C14N 2010-12-07 0 ISSUE-221 Clarify xml:space and xml:base, section 6.7.1.1 , http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-subtrees-with-exclusions 2010-12-07 0 ISSUE-222 Review URI definitions in Signature 2.0 , also consider indicating usage in URI, e.g. /transforms 2010-12-14 0 ISSUE-223 Requirement to "respect XML architecture" may lead to issue related to simplification and vs need to implement ISSUE-224, why is base64 listed in algorithms section ]]
Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 19:49:55 UTC