- From: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:29:13 -0400
- 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. Ed -- Original Message -- >Hi, > >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 > >cases. > 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 ><http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/>. > >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. > >Thanks, >Donald > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 21:29:44 UTC