- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:27:05 -0400
- To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: "Donald Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
Members of the WG (and particularly implementors represented in the interop
matrix), it's important that we know which direction you would like us to
take. So please respond, on the list, to the following poll by end of Monday
June 18th.
With respect to the issue of excluding ancestor context from the canonical
form of a signature[1], the WG should pursue option:
1. Specify the exclusive canonicalization as part of the non-normative (nor
required to implement) dsig-more specification [2].
2.Specify the exclusive canonicalization as part of the normative
xmldsig-core as proposed in [3] (but with the URIs of [4]) as [REQUIRED,
RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL]. (This option requires interoperable implementation
of this feature before xmldsig advances.)
Donald & Joseph
[1]
http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-NamespaceContext
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/att-0293/01-sigport.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#excC14N
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#excC14N-WithComments
--
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, 14 June 2001 16:27:12 UTC