- From: <david.solo@citicorp.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:16:14 -0400
- TO: gwhitehead@signio.com
- CC: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
- Message-Id: <H0000cc4047dd860@MHS>
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/
Received on Saturday, 16 October 1999 12:16:49 UTC