Re: additional XMLDSIG URIs

I don't have any problem with it using a W3C namespace and also being
a W3C Note but feel that there should be a parallel IETF document.
It's also easier for me to keep cranking it as an internet-draft until
it is more stable...

From:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Message-Id:  <4.3.2.7.2.20010419111704.00b8d7a0@localhost>
Date:  Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:19:35 -0400
To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc:  "Brian LaMacchia" <bal@microsoft.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>,
            <lde008@dms.isg.mot.com>
In-Reply-To:  <200104191312.JAA0000062188@torque.pothole.com>
References:  <Your message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:26:29 PDT." <BCDB2C3F59F5744EBE37C715D66E779CEAB661@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

>At 09:12 4/19/2001 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>>My draft doesn't prohibit there being anything at the URL's. These
>>additional URIs are, at this instant, not part of the W3C standard or
>>otherwise in the orbit of the W3C.  The XMDLSIG standard permits
>>algorithms defined by other orgnanizations, such as these, and does
>>not require them to be dereferencable.  Do you want to change the
>>XMLDSIG standard to require dereferencability?

I was asking Brian...

>I doubt that. I think the question is if folks in the WG prefer it, are you 
>willing to publish it as a W3C NOTE and use a W3C namespace because the W3C 
>is fairly robust in its versioning, stability, and persistence associated 
>with its URIs?

Sure,
Donald

>(I don't feel too strongly either way.)
>
>__
>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/

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 22:47:21 UTC