W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Namespace Inclusions

From: Vamsi Motukuru <vamsi.motukuru@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:32:13 -0400
Message-ID: <42B832FD.3070303@oracle.com>
To: jose.kahan@w3.org
CC: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, www-xkms@w3.org

AFAIK, all XML Signature implementations support EXC-C14N and C14N. It 
should not have any impact on exisiting implementations since it just 
requires invoking a different canonicalization algorithm.

~ Vamsi


Jose Kahan wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> A question for developers.
> 
> Following Rich's comment:
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:42:21AM -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
> 
>>I think that since we no longer use QName's in XKMS, that this is not 
>>much of an issue any more.  Also, since WS-Security and WS-I, et al., 
>>are now all recommending exclusive-c14n, which doesn't have the problems 
>>caused by standard c14n and embedding content, we should strike this.
>>
>>It's not really an editorial change, although it can be treated as such, 
>>since it's removing a limitation.  We can either remove the text, and 
>>let folks like ws-i, etc., advise what to do, or we can explicitly say
>>	XKMS messages that will be embedded in SOAP documents SHOULD be 
>>	signed using exc-c14n.
> 
> 
> Will either striking the text or changing it to request the use of exc-c14n 
> affect existing implementations? If the answer is yes, I prefer to defer
> this modification to a subsequent edition of the spec.
> 
> I also think that mentioning exc-c14n is better than just striking out the 
> text.
> 
> Tommy, Vamsi, ... comments?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -jose
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 15:33:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:44 UTC