- From: 杉山 高弘 <t-sugiyama@da.jp.nec.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:27:38 +0900
- To: <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, <bal@microsoft.com>, <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>, <harada@prs.cs.fujitsu.co.jp>, <Petteri.Stenius@done360.com>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: "Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Dear Mr. Joseph We(NEC) select 1 in the following question. If the latest spec supports The Reference Processing Model in 4.3.3.2, it is necessary to Retain the sections [3] . However, we have not underdstood the latest spec completely yet. This is just only reference opinion. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org> To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>; "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>; <Petteri.Stenius@done360.com>; <harada@prs.cs.fujitsu.co.jp>; <bdournaee@rsasecurity.com>; <sugiyama@isd.nec.co.jp>; <bal@microsoft.com>; <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp> Cc: "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>; "Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:38 AM Subject: Poll (Was: Question for Implementors (Was: Schema Validation Transform)) > The immediate question facing us then is what to do with these parts of the > spec in the mean time? Please send your response (particularly from > implementors) by the end this week. Should we: > > 1. Retain the sections [3] as is and wait for interop. > 2. Retain the sections [3]in a modified form and argue they are merely > INFORMATIONAL. Neither transform requires much by way of a specified > feature. If we eliminated the porting of a schema as a child of the > <Transform Algorithm="&schema;"/>, all we are doing is agreeing upon the > algorithm URI, and repeating what the XML and schema inputs/outputs to the > vaidation are from their own specs. > 3. Remove the sections (but continue to leave hints that schema and XML > validation should be treated as transforms). > 4. Remove the sections and place them in the Auxillary Algorithms draft? > > Whatever we do, we *might* have to bounce back down to a last call or CR > before going to REC for a few weeks, but I'm less concerned with that then > getting consensus on a good decision on our options above. > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0219.html > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0225.html > [3] > http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-XMLValidation > http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html#sec-SchemaValidation > >
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 03:32:35 UTC