Re: Three Issues for C14N Consideration

At 02:43 AM 6/25/99 +0900, Hiroshi Maruyama wrote:
 >Joseph,
 >I reviewed your post on the Syntax WG
 >(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Jun/0075.html).

Aargh, sorry! I read your post as an application of Clark's method instead
of a hybrid. I didn't note that you capitalized "EACH" in the text below.

  >>After following the discussion between Don and James Clark, however, I
  >>realized that James Clark's proposal can also be made context independent
  >>as he points out. ... I think it is  more reasonable and more preferable
to have a 
  >>C14N definition based on his proposal, using generated prefixes such as
"n1", 
  >>"n2", ..., and so on for EACH element.
 
The Syntax WG is not likely going to be able to reflect this prior to its
first public WD. Once it is published (so the whole xmldsig group can see
it) I recommend sending a new comment to the specification's-comment address
(and any other comments) for discussion. (Or if people want to continue it
here/now: fine.) Since I'm obviously not very good at porting subtly's from
private communications between two working groups, I'd recommend discussion
on this topic happen on both lists, or if the Syntax WG Chairs oppose, at
least keep the dsig list in the cc.

 >This is an important property if we want to allow signing a part (a
 >subelement) of an XML document.
 >The current WD seems to allow canonicalization of a whole document only.
 >Am I wrong?

I don't think so. Though it would help if I knew what change to the Tag
Processing Algorithm of section 6.1 were required.

_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/

Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 14:20:47 UTC