W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Last Call for C14N 1.1 (and updated WG notes)

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:01:39 -0500
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, www-xml-canonicalization-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <200612211601.39199.reagle@mit.edu>

On Thursday 21 December 2006 14:42, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> By the way, the entire section 4 is unchanged in C14N 1.1 from 
> C14N 1.0.  Most of the changes are in section 2.4 (perhaps that
> is what you meant).

OK, that helps immensely. As is evident in my comments, my context-loss is 
high, and I was flagging issues that I remember were of concern before, and 
might be of concern again if things had changed. But, evidently, those bits 
of text haven't changed!

> > 4. "Note that an argument similar to this can be leveled ...
> > 5. "The C14N-20000119 Canonical XML draft alternated": here you are 
> > referring to the causation method that belonged to the XML ...
> That sentence is unchanged between C14N 1.0 and the latest draft.
> The XML Core WG was not involved in the writing of C14N 1.0.
> Our charter for C14N 1.1 was to fix the problem in C14N 1.0
> with inheritance of xml:id and xml:base.  We made a conscious
> effort not to make changes in other areas of the spec.

Okay. If you know what has changed, and one is reading the specification 
knowing that was your goal -- not a bad goal either -- that might make 
sense. But given that this is yet another canonicalization specification 
people with new eyes, either from youth or memory loss, would benefit from 
some sort of "lay of the land" I am sure.
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 21:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:16 UTC