- From: Karl Scheibelhofer <Karl.Scheibelhofer@iaik.at>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:06:10 +0100
- To: <reagle@w3.org>, "'John Boyer'" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "'merlin'" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
personally, i do not think that big changes, like introducing new filter mechanisms, are desirable and technically necessary. i do not know how stable XPointer really is and what their time schedule is. however, the use of XPointer as specified in section "4.3.3.3 Same-Document URI-References" is quite OK as far as i can see at the moment. (btw, does step 4 in this section mean that step 4 should be repeated for each descendant element of E? i guess it should.) i see that there is a problem with using XPointer in XMLDsig, if it is not sure when it will become recommendation. regards Karl Scheibelhofer -- Karl Scheibelhofer, <mailto:Karl.Scheibelhofer@iaik.at> Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications (IAIK) at Graz University of Technology, Austria, http://www.iaik.at and http://jcewww.iaik.at Phone: (+43) (316) 873-5540 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:38 PM > To: John Boyer; Karl Scheibelhofer; merlin > Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > Subject: Re: Bad news! RE: History: Question on C14N list of > nodes instead of subtrees > > > On Monday 28 January 2002 17:01, John Boyer wrote: > > The XFDL design specifies subtree roots *and* uses one of two > > keywords: keep or omit. If you say 'keep', then the subtrees > > specified are the ones kept by the signature filter. If you say > > 'omit', then the entire document except the specified subtrees are > > omitted. > > John, this sounds like a good technical approach. As I've > mentioned before, > I don't think cycling in our current dual/over-extended > process is the > right timing/process approach. Regardless, if you're willing > to do the work > (and it sounds like this issue has the attention of the > implementors) I'd > suggest writing up a draft as we did with exc-c14n. Moving an > external > document is much easier with respect to focus, process, and > attention then > trying to address a problem in the larger document. (I'm very glad we > resisted the calls to specify exc-c14n *within* the xmldsig > document and > get it entangled in that process!) I want to get xmldsig > syntax/processing > (remember, we used to call it "core"!) out of the way, then > recharter so we > can focus on getting and addressing experience resulting from wide > deployment in all kinds of application scenarios. > > -- > > 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 Tuesday, 29 January 2002 04:02:04 UTC