- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:23:18 -0400
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, lde008@dma.isg.mot.com
I'm not 100% sure but I can seek guidance if necessary. I don't currently believe it would include such things as syntactic hooks for user defined algorithms. However, I think you may have a good point on RetrievalMethod. Given that it's implementation is a SHOULD, it seems like ti ought to be in the interoperability matrix... Thanks, Donald From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie> To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com> Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, lde008@dma.isg.mot.com In-reply-to: <200104060211.WAA0000037402@torque.pothole.com> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:13:16 +0100 Message-Id: <20010409151316.EC4C543BDA@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.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 Tuesday, 10 April 2001 00:23:38 UTC