RE: Soap Message Canonicalization (SM-C14N)

Different purposes may require different canonicalizations.  For
example, the XML Encryption and Digital Signature specification provide
for an open-ended set of possible canonicalizations.  It is more likely
that specifications such as these will provide canonicalizations
suitable to their purposes than that we will invent a single one that
fits all.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:19 PM
To: Noah Mendelsohn
Cc: xml-dist-app
Subject: Re: Soap Message Canonicalization (SM-C14N)

I agree with you, and would like to see SOAP make guarantees about how
intermediaries must preserve the order.  Until or unless that is done,
however, SM-C14N requires a unique sorting order; if you can think of a
more streaming-friendly way to do it, I'm all ears.

> * In general, I'm not sure we've motivated a single canonicalization
for
> SOAP.  What are the use cases.  Allowing some freedom to
intermediaries
> does establish equivalence classes for soap messages, but not
necessarily
> one representation for each class that's considered canonical.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  I want to be able to canonicalize a
message so that I get the identical byte stream no matter what
conforming intermediaries do. I need the identical byte stream so that
no matter who hashes [apologies to the Grinch], and no matter when in
the processing flow they hash, all hashes are the same.

Make sense?
	/r$
-- 
Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
Encryption)
http://www.zolera.com

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2002 23:20:20 UTC