- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:50:46 -0400
- 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