- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:09:43 -0500
- To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Cc: "XMLSigWG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, <merlin@baltimore.ie>, <bal@microsoft.com>, "Eastlake <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
On Friday 18 January 2002 08:30, Gregor Karlinger wrote: > This sounds fine. In the text "at the end of this section" it should be > stated, that DName encoding for XMLDSIG is similar to RFC 2253; the only > difference is the encoding of strings in a DName (encoding of RDF > sequence and AVA sequences is done as stated in RFC 2253). Gregor, the editorial aspect has been done in: [ http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/ $Revision: 1.149 $ on $Date: 2002/01/18 18:59:56 $ ] However, it didn't make it into the latest ietf-draft Don sent in. I expect we'll still be able to squeeze that bit in before the RFC is published. As to the semi-substantive issue (tweaks to the control characters and omission of the trailing white space and "physical representation") I won't make a change unless the folks active on this thread last time around (such as Merlin and Brian) also advocate for the change in time for us to accommodate it -- which I can't make any guarantees for since we are trying to have this published soon. -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 14:09:57 UTC