W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: minimal canonicalization

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:07:01 -0400
To: Carl Ellison <cme@jf.intel.com>, "XML Signature (W3C/IETF)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: Carl Ellison <cme@jf.intel.com>
Message-Id: <200207241507.01807.reagle@w3.org>

On Wednesday 24 July 2002 01:13 pm, Carl Ellison wrote:
> We actually have devices that are resource constrained and need to do
> minimal canonicalization (as part of UPnP), but the way this
> recommendation is written, it suggests that the constrained device
> control its output.

Is the constrained device generating a signature. If so, yes, it's 
generating and controlling it's output.

>  In fact, if we have two devices, one powerful
> and doing C14-N and one constrained, it is the powerful one that has
> to make sure its output is canonicalized.

I don't yet understand the scenario.

> BTW, we would like further guidance about minimal canonicalization
> from the dsig community, if anyone has it to offer.

I've heard that people said they were going to do such things, but I'm not 
aware of any such implementation or actual usage.
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 15:07:15 UTC

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