Fwd: Call for Implementation: XML-Signature Syntax and Processing Becomes a W3C Candidate Recommendation

We've put our left foot (W3C) forward [1] and we hope/expect the right foot 
(IETF) to follow soon. Regardless, the Chairs would like to thank and 
congratulate everyone for their proposals, discussion, astute eyes, and 
implementations.

Now the task is to see if we can't add a few more implementations to [2] and 
fill all the columns with "yes". If you have any comments or suggestions on 
interoperability, please send them on to the list -- as always!

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmldsig-core-20001031/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/10/17-xmldsig-interop.html

Forwarded Text ----
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:02:29 -0500
>From: Janet Daly <janet@w3.org>
>...
>
>W3C is pleased to announce the advancement of Canonical XML to Candidate
>Recommendation status.
>
>   XML-Signature Syntax and Processing
>   31 October 2000
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmldsig-core-20001031/
>   Editors
>         Donald Eastlake <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
>         Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
>         David Solo <dsolo@alum.mit.edu>
>   Authors
>         Mark Bartel <mbartel@JetForm.com>
>         John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
>         Barb Fox <bfox@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
>         Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
>
>1 Abstract
>
>This document specifies XML digital signature processing rules and
>syntax. XML Signatures provide integrity, message authentication, and/or
>signer authentication services for data of any type, whether located
>within the XML that includes the signature or elsewhere.
>
>
>2 Request for publication and outstanding issues
>
>The publication of the XML-Signature Syntax and Processing Candidate
>Recommendation is a result of a request sent to the Director and the W3C
>Chairs, archived at:
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2000OctDec/0059.html
>
>The XML Signature WG reports that all last call issues have been
>resolved. The Last Call Issue Report is at:
>
>http://www.w3.org/Signature/20000228-last-call-issues.html
>
>There were no minority objections.
>
>Results of the initial operability report are available at:
>
>http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/10/17-xmldsig-interop.html
>
>
>3 Exit criteria
>
>The XML Signature Working Group encourages implementations during the CR
>period, which ends on 31 January 2001.
>
>The XML Signature Working Group must produce an amended version of the
>implementation report, taking into account new implementations, in order
>to exit the Candidate Recommendation phase, and showing that they have
>addressed all issues raised during the CR period.
>
>In particular, the Working Group appreciates implementations on the
>following two points:
>
>   1. XPath is RECOMMENDED. Signature applications need not conform to
>      [XPath] specification in order to conform to this specification.
>      However, the XPath data model, definitions (e.g., node-sets) and
>      syntax is used within this document in order to describe
>      functionality for those that want to process XML-as-XML (instead
>      of octets) as part of signature generation. It appears all known
>      implementations are satisfying the functional requirements by
>      implementing XPath, consequently should we make it MANDATORY?
>
>   2. Minimal canonicalization (defined by this spec) is RECOMMENDED.
>      There are no implementations of this algorithm: should we make
>      it OPTIONAL or even remove it?
>
>
>4 Description of what Candidate Recommendation status means
>
>The W3C Process Document describes the Candidate Recommendation status
>of a specification in Section 6.2.3:
>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR
>
>    Advancement of a document to Candidate Recommendation is an explicit
>    call to those outside of the related Working Groups or the W3C itself
>    for implementation and technical feedback.
>
>
>5 Status of this document
>
>     This specification from the IETF/W3C XML Signature Working Group
>     (W3C Activity Statement) is a Candidate Recommendation of the
>     W3C. The Working Group believes this specification incorporates
>     the resolution of all last call issues; furthermore it considers
>     the specification to be very stable and invites implementation
>     feedback during this period.
>
>     The duration of Candidate Recommendation will last approximately
>     three months (January 31 2001); after which it should proceed to
>     Proposed Recommendation. However, this specification will not
>     reach Recommendation until the closure of the 6 month IETF
>     Proposed Standard period in May 2001. In May, this specification
>     should be advanced to W3C Recommendation and IETF Draft Standard
>     provided no substantive concerns were raised that would bar such
>     progress. Note, this specification already has significant
>     implementation experience as demonstrated by its Interoperability
>     Report. We expect to meet all requirements of that report within
>     the three month Candidate Recommendation period. Specific areas
>     where we would appreciate further implementation experience are:
>
>      1. XPath is RECOMMENDED. Signature applications need not conform to
>         [XPath] specification in order to conform to this specification.
>         However, the XPath data model, definitions (e.g., node-sets) and
>         syntax is used within this document in order to describe
>         functionality for those that want to process XML-as-XML (instead
>         of octets) as part of signature generation. It appears all known
>         implementations are satisfying the functional requirements by
>         implementing XPath, consequently should we make it MANDATORY?
>         [See Note-XPath for more.]
>      2. Minimal canonicalization (defined by this spec) is RECOMMENDED.
>         There are no implementations of this algorithm: should we make
>         it OPTIONAL or even remove it?
>
>     Please send comments to the editors and cc: the list
>     <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>.
>
>     A list of current W3C working drafts can be found at
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/. Current IETF drafts can be found at
>     http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html.
>
>     Patent disclosures relevant to this specification may be found on
>     the Working Group's patent disclosure page in conformance with
>     W3C policy, and the IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights
>     Notices in conformance with IETF policy.
>
>for Tim Berners-Lee, Director;
>Janet Daly, Head of Communications
End Forwarded Text ----

__
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, 31 October 2000 20:19:41 UTC