- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 23:07:51 -0400
- To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
I must admit that some of these are pretty diddly... 2.2 Suggest "XML syntax signatures" instead of "XML signtuares" as just saying "XML signatures" seems to, sooner or later, lead to questions on whether they are signatures in XML syntax or signatures of XML objects. 2.2 Drop comment. As far as I can tell, no one is talking, or at least not talking anymore, about implicitly indicating the data signed by the mere placement of the signature. 3.2 Comment. should end with "and/or" non-repudiability since we support keyed hashes which do not provide technical non-repudiation. (Note Intro says "and/or non-repudiabiilty". 7.1 Spell out "opt". 7.2 Suggest "Applications must use XLink locators when they reference resources from within a manifest". I don't like the slat of the current wording which could imply that the use of a manifest is mandatory. 3.1.2 Pushes manifest to much and mandates URIs or fragments when sometimes we use XLink. 2.4 Suggest replacing "A key" with "An important". 3.3.3 I suppose it is OK with the note but when have a "requirement" mandating a certain action when we may decide otherwise. Thanks, Donald ===================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 914-276-2668 dee3@torque.pothole.com 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1 +1 914-784-7913(work) dee3@us.ibm.com Carmel, NY 10512 USA
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 1999 23:07:55 UTC