W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: Minutes from Today's Call Please Review/Correct

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:39:43 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Phillip M Hallam-Baker" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 13:43 99.08.20 -0400, Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote:
 >>             Removing selections of XML. Should the ability to
 >>             preclude sections be a mandatory to implement
 >>             feature/requirement of selection/c14n.
 >Since it has already been agreed by the group that C14N
 >is OPTIONAL it cannot be part of a mandatory to implement

I agree. (Though the agreement over c14n being optional is over actual
content referrenced in a package or manifest, not over the processing of the
package or manifest itself, right? David and Richard's proposals seem to
require c14n of those objects. David, Richard?)

 >I already have XML signature applications being specified.
 >I want to align them with the spec as soon as possible. I
 >do not want to be forced to wait for the outcome of the
 >C14N discussions to terminate before I can do this.

Agree. I don't think we need to cram everything into c14n. There's a whole
slew of transformations people will want to do, we need to make sure that
our required to implement features are implemented by one of the
required-to-implement mechanisms (be it an exclude tag or whatever.)

 >If the overhead of XML signatures exceeds that of CMS it
 >has lost all value for me.

I think that is a worthwhile bound to come in under.

Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Friday, 20 August 1999 14:42:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:09:55 UTC