RE: Publication of Working Draft / IETF-Draft

Greg,

Its on hold pending pending a stable c14n algorithm to point to.  The candidate 
algorithms proposed to mandate (DOM-CANON, minimal, W3C) are all moving targets 
so it would be premature to pick one (and potentially delay closure on the 
spec).  I think it makes sense to revisit this once there's more progress in 
the c14n arena.  Personally, I also would prefer a mandatory to implement 
default to a fixed algorithm, just in case.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gwhitehead [mailto:gwhitehead@signio.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 7:37 PM
> To: reagle
> Cc: gwhitehead; w3c-ietf-xmldsig
> Subject: RE: Publication of Working Draft / IETF-Draft
> 
> 
> Did the proposal to fix the canonicalization algorithm used 
> on SignedInfo,
> and eliminate 4.1, get rejected or just lost in the shuffle?
> 
> -Greg
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 3:45 PM
> To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG
> Subject: Publication of Working Draft / IETF-Draft
> 
> 
> I've prepared both versions of the document for advancement 
> through the
> publication process of each institution.
> 
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/WD-xmldsig-core-19991020.html
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/draft-ietf-xmldsig-core-00.txt

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