- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:48:40 -0400
- To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Cc: "'Brian LaMacchia'" <bal@microsoft.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>, IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 10:34 6/20/2001, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >There is more than one way to boil an ocean. We need to specify it. (Canonical XML is done, there's nothing we can do to that spec.) The question is do we do specify exclusive canonicalization orthogonally and let xmldsig-core advance, or do we hold xmldsig-core until it's resolved so we can REQUIRE implementations to implement it. (Again, holding xmldsig-core for anything other than MUST doesn't make much sense to me now, and as you say the MUST in xmldsig-core won't tell people anything they don't already know if they face the enveloping scenario)... -- 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 Wednesday, 20 June 2001 10:48:44 UTC