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

Re: minimal canonicalization

From: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:12:22 -0400
Message-ID: <004c01c233ed$af7f3390$f2a0fea9@DJQC7111>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "Carl Ellison" <cme@jf.intel.com>, "XML Signature \(W3C/IETF\)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

I don't think UPnP would be UPnP if endpoints had to dictate how servers
create the data they send; it is not how the data is created that is the
concern but what the data is coming out of the server.

Just because an endpoint uses SAX doesn't mean a server can't use DOM.

Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Ed Simon
<edsimon@xmlsec.com>
(613) 726-9645
XMLsec Inc.

Interested in XML Security Training and Consulting services?  Visit
"www.xmlsec.com".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
To: <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: "Carl Ellison" <cme@jf.intel.com>; "XML Signature (W3C/IETF)"
<w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: minimal canonicalization


>
> > If you can constrain your process such that you know no intermediaries
are
> > introducing particular sorts of changes
>
> And the endpoint.  It would be unfortunate if a UPnP device required all
> UPnP servers to be implemented in such a style that a DOM-based approach
> wouldn't work.
> /r$
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 11:13:24 UTC

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