Re: Enumerated XML-Signature Conformance Requirements

At 17:25 7/25/2000 -0700, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
 >Some thoughts [1]. (Basically, let's tighten our definition of a conformant
 >Signature application and define a conformant signature element as why that
 >is laxly valid according to the schema). Other thoughts are welcome.
 >__
 >[1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/07/27-conformance.html

After our various discussions regarding being cleaner about what it is we
are specifying, I've done the following in the draft editors' copy text
(unless anyone takes issues with these suggestions):

1. included a definition of Signature Application in the glossary:
"Signature, Application
An application that implements the MANDATORY (REQUIRED/MUST) portions of
this specification; these conformance requirements are over the structure of
the Signature element type (instances MUST be  and its child's content
SignatureValue and mandatory to support algorithms."

2. added a sentece to the Introduction, "More specifically, this
specification defines an XML signature element type and an XML Signature
application; conformance requirements for each are specified by way of
schema definitions and prose respectively."

3. provide more clarity regarding what it means for the schema to be
normative [aa] by adding that Signature elements must be laxly schema valid
in section 1 and 4.1 .

4. moved the MUSTs in section 8 to must.

5. We are still awaiting text from Don on the MUSTs in section 7.1 with
respect to conformance and Martin's comment (the last of Signature Last Call
Issues) [b].

[a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0191.html
[b] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0091.html

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

Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2000 15:21:04 UTC