- From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:13:16 +0100
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, lde008@dma.isg.mot.com
Hi Donald, What guidelines are used to measure significance? Current interop examples exercise KeyValue and X509Data, but none of the other key info types. Is that important? It seems that RetrievalMethod is possibly the most complex of them; does it rise above insignificance? On the m5l C14N front, the algorithm seems relatively unpopular with current implementers. I know that we will not be implementing it in the near future, so will not be able to participate in any necessary interop. Merlin r/dee3@torque.pothole.com/2001.04.05/22:11:25 > >In order to go to Draft Standard, the IETF requires there be two >indepenent interoperable implementations of each significant >option/feature. As far as I can tell, there are none for Minimal >Canonicalization. Unless a couple pop up in the next few days, say by >next Tuesday, I suggest that it be dropped from the specification. > >Thanks, >Donald > >From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> >Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010404122156.01ffe008@rpcp.mit.edu> >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:23:44 -0400 >To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> >In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010403173259.02727d70@rpcp.mit.edu> > >>Oh, two other things to note, in the first CR we asked for feedback on the >>use of XPath terminology, and whether minC14N should be downgraded to >>optional. We didn't have any feedback on either, so I expect we should leave >>them as is. >>__ >>Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ >>W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org >>IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature >>W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/ > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or appearance at trade shows and conferences. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses. http://www.baltimore.com
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 11:14:23 UTC