Canonical XML

Based on interest by the Core WG to hand the Canonical  XML work item to the
XML Signature WG [1] and on reciprocated interest to receive it [2] (as it
is critical to our spec advancement and driven by our requirements) the XML
Signature WG will publish next version of a Canonical XML specification. I
believe from a technical and resource point of view, this is a good thing.
The open question relates to process. Need this be stricken from the Core
charter and placed as an explicit deliverable of the Signature WG? As the
Signature WG will still want Core review, and this issue is clearly within
Signature scope [3] (even if not an explicit deliverable) I would like to
propose that the Signature WG become the consensus fora for the
specification; part of that fora is feedback from the Core WG. Furthermore:

0. A change in Core's charter should be discussed by the XML Coordination
Group. A change in the Signature WG charter will be put on the agenda of an
upcoming coordination meeting between the W3C and IETF.
1. As the Signature WG is not part of the formal W3C XML Activity, it will
not need a seat on the XML Coordination Group, and as all interim drafts
will be public it need not comply with the plenary requirement of publishing
to plenary prior to the public.
2. The Signature WG need not produce an IETF standards version of this
specification (nor its pre-existing requirements document). 
3. The Signature WG will be responsible for the next Last Call (the
specification already went through one) including comments from the Core WG
that will act as the liaison to the formal XML Activity.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000AprJun/0070.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Minutes/000420-Victoria/#C14N
[3] http://www.w3.org/Signature/charter-20000105.html#_Scope
    2. Creating an extensible canonicalization framework. In addition,
       specify application requirements over canonicalization. All
       XML-DSig applications must be able to sign -- at least -- the
       binary byte stream. The group may also require applications to
       support XML syntax or Unicode canonicalization if those mechanisms
       are widely understood and necessary. This group will coordinate
       its requirements with activities delivering XML, RDF, or DOM
       canonicalization mechanisms.
    

_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 18:12:58 UTC