- From: Vamsi Motukuru <vamsi.motukuru@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:32:13 -0400
- 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