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

RE: Consensus re exclusive canonicalization

From: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:29:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3B310B3100000311@mail.san.yahoo.com>
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
For the record, I remain undecided.  I was particularly interested to read
the opinions of those who have been coding implementations (eg. Gregor and
Kent), but even among them, there is no strong concensus.  I think we need
to have at least one telecon soon to discuss where we go from here.

-- Original Message --

>Joseph and I have discussed this. There does not appear to be a clear
>consensus to insert exclusive c14n into the XMLDSIG specification. In
>addition, doing so would cause process delays and there appear to
>still be some technical questions as to the best exact formulation for
>exclusive c14n.
>This was the tally result:
>Hughes: option 1 if no delays, option 2 otherwise
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0332.html
>Hallam-Baker: option 1
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0327.html
>Tamuru: option 2 RECOMMENDED is suitable because we don't need it in all
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0321.html
>Maslen: option 2 required preferred
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0297.html
>Boyer: option 2 with many caveats
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0304.html
>Geuer-Pollmann: Option 2 - RECOMMENDED.
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0299.html
>Mark Bartel: option 2 and REQUIRED.
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0303.html
>Brian LaMacchia: option 1
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0310.html
>Gregor Karlinger: option 1
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001AprJun/0311.html
>We have the mixed requirements of (1) making this be available ASAP,
>(2) we need to do it right and (3) not hold up xmldsig-core. So the
>conclusion is to advance on the xmldsig-core front separately and see
>how fast we can make exclusive c14n happen in an orthogonal
>document. Appropriate parts of my exclusive c14n proposed wording that
>generalized and improved xmldsig-core, but not the exclusive c14n
>algorithm, have been incorporated into the editor's copy at
>A possible schedule for a separate c14n document appears below.
>Telecons could be added to this scheduled. If we really push, we could
>have it completed at end of summer.
>Tentative Schedule for Exclusive C14N:
>1. June 25th, next draft available, WG discuss on list.
>2. July 2nd, first set of interop examples should be available.
>3. July 9th, publish as Working Draft
>4. July 23, publish as (3 week last call)
>4. July 30, should have interop over examples.
>5. August 13, last call complete (assuming no outstanding issues and enough
>interop to satisfy CR, advance immediately to PR)
>Comments welcome.
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 21:29:44 UTC

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