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

Re: initial Exclusive Canonicalization draft

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:22:39 -0400
Message-Id: <200107270322.XAA0000054910@torque.pothole.com>
To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
cc: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

I don't really care that much where the documentation of the algorithm
URI and parameters for Exclusive XML Canonicalization go. But XMLDSIG
is quite stable so I don't think we want to add things there.  It
seems to me that the More XMLDSIG URIs document is really intended for
secondary things. So I guess I lean towards putting it in the
EXCL-C14N specification.


From:  merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
To:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
Cc:  "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
In-reply-to:  <> 
Date:  Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:42:31 +0100
Message-Id:  <20010715224231.EFA0C43BCB@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

>>At 07:58 7/12/2001, merlin wrote:
>>>The encoding (and, incidentally, your algorithm URI) belongs in &more;
>>If I understand you, I don't agree with this. This specification should 
>>define its own identifier. Why would it exist in &more;?
>I just look at &exc; as the specification for an algorithm and &more;
>as a specification for how certain algorithms are identified and encoded
>for use in &dsig;. In much the same way, &c14n; specifies an algorithm
>and &dsig; specifies (among other things) algorithm identifiers and
>parameter encoding. The &exc; document is not tied to &dsig; and really
>doesn't need to know how it will be encoded.
>If this is not how things are, then I'm wrong. merlin
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 23:24:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:06 UTC