W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Prepping Next Version of Signature Spec

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:23:18 -0400
Message-Id: <200104100423.AAA0000045661@torque.pothole.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:04 UTC