- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:27:12 -0400
- To: xml-encryption@w3.org
Some thoughts on what we need to do in the near future: 1. Encryption Syntax and Processing The design is solid and the bug reports on this spec are fairly rare [1], but still popping up. We have three implementation reports; but I know there's a lot more work being done out there and I'd like to see at least two more implementations (and the lack of reported bugs) before I'm confident we should move forward. I hope we have this within the 4 weeks (?). 2. Decyrption Transform for XML Signature The ideas/design have been stable for quite some time. We did a substantive bit of editing in the past few weeks to add a tiny amount of functionality and to improve the specification. I hope the authors will do one more round of edits [3] that we all agree to. Then, I think the substantive work on that spec will be done, but we definitely need more implementation and interop, particularly feedback with respect to efficiency (acceptable performance) in satisfying application requirements of using xmldsig and xenc together. 3. Other As an aside, I still have the action item to register a MIME type for xenc. (Is anyone experienced at this?) I hope to get to that started before May. (I'll be traveling over-seas, attending a slew of meetings, and taking holiday that month so I don't expect to be very productive!) [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/11/last-call-issues#CandidateREC [2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2002/02-xenc-interop.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Apr/0031.html -- 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, 10 April 2002 17:27:12 UTC