- From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:54:47 +0200
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> 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.)
I vote for option (1), mainly for the following reasons:
- Arguments (3) and (5) raised by BAL in [1]
- Option (2) only makes sense as a MUST from my point of view, and
then the time delay resulting from this change will be close to
BAL's "6-12 months".
- I am not sure if the proposal from Don is mature enough, or if it
can solve the namespace related problems sufficiently at all, to be
included as part of XML-Signature, as the discussion in [2], [3]
and [4] shows.
---
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0305.html
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0304.html
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0306.html
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0309.html
Liebe Gruesse/Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
DI Gregor Karlinger
mailto:gregor.karlinger@iaik.at
http://www.iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 05:54:53 UTC