- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:18:32 -0400
- To: Eve.Maler@East.Sun.COM, Marc Chanliau <mchanliau@netegrity.com>, fallside@us.ibm.com
- Cc: chairs@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I'm planning on requesting Proposed Recommendation for Exclusive Canonicalization as soon as possible. If you have any positive or negative comments to report, please do so (or email me when you plan to do so) by end of Friday April 19th. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:08:48 -0400 From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@cio.gv.at>, TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, Ari Kermaier <arik@phaos.com>, Aleksey Sanin <aleksey@aleksey.com> Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org As mentioned in [1] and expected in [2] I'd like to move this document forward. If I request Proposed REC I might be able to make a case for advancement on the basis of [0], but the more documentation I have, the better. In particular I'd like to: 1. Fill in the row for the "#default" token and adequate performance for the empty cells. 2. Have a report that someone tested it (even informally) in some application context (e.g., SOAP) and it did what they needed it to do. 3. Have someone else try Gregor's examples. If you can contribute on any of these fronts, please do so -- if you can't immediately but hope to do so soon, feel free to email me off list. Also, if you know you have concerns or problems with exc-c14n, speak now or forever hold your peace! <smile/> [0 http://www.w3.org/Signature/2002/02/01-exc-c14n-interop [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002AprJun/0043 2. Exclusive Canonicalization I feel like the work on this specification is done and we're pretty much ready to move forward. I'd like to hear a few more people report success with Gregor's tests [1] and that you're satisfied with its operation in an application context. (Even if you've already sent in a report, if your column isn't complete or haven't interop'd with Gregor's tests, please do so.) If I get this feedback soon, I'll stage it for publication as a Proposed REC at the end of this month! [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml-exc-c14n-20020212 We expect to meet all requirements of that report within the two month Candidate Recommendation period (closing April 16). Specific areas where we would appreciate further implementation experience are: 1. Speed of canonicalziation relative to Canonical XML; [23]it should be no slower, is it faster? 2. Use in application contexts. Does the specified behaviour meet application requirements for flexibly canonicalizing document subsets if they are moved out of their context? For example, [24]does your application scenario lead to any difficulties in which a subset (e.g., payload) require the use of an ancestor base that is not easily remedied by including xml:base in the apex of the subset? -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/ ------------------------------------------------------- -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 17:18:40 UTC