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

Re: Poll on Exclusive Canonicalization

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:50:46 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
At 22:27 6/19/2001, TAMURA Kent wrote:
>I think we should do 2 as possible.  (Un)fortunately we don't
>have Proposed Recommendation of dsig-core yet.
>RECOMMENDED is suitable because we don't need it in all cases.

Hi Kent, it is unfortunate if we can't advance it within the next few weeks, 
but why hold up xmldsig-core if you only advocate it be RECOMMENDED? I'm not 
sure what that buys us over letting xmldsig-core advance as is, and 
developing exclusive canonicalization orthogonally?

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 10:50:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:05 UTC