- From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:33:32 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Hi Jospeh, I've been thinking I should polish it a little and submit it as an Informational RFC. A W3C Note or internal version of it could certainly be produced as well, same as the base XMLDSIG document is issued in both organizations. I'm not sure if there are any pending specific additions although there have been a few which have been discussed in generalities. I'd appreciate it if anyone who had some specific request for an addition could send me some specific wording. Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Joseph Reagle wrote: > Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:59:48 -0400 > From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> > To: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com > Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > Subject: Question: Status of Additional XML Security URIs > Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:59:52 -0400 (EDT) > Resent-From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > > > > Donald, the "Additional XML Security URIs" [1] draft will be expiring in > July. What should we do next with it? I don't think we've had many requests > for additions recently. Do you want to publish it as an Informational RFC? > Another option is to publish it on the W3C site. One could do it as a NOTE, > or even more informally, just as a document in the date space (e.g., > /2002/01/foo) as just a staff/administrative thingie. Not good for > normative references, but it can be useful to applications... > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-02.txt > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 23:33:38 UTC