- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:01:21 -0400
- To: aleksey@aleksey.com, Joseph Ashwood <ashwood@msn.com>
- Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
On Thursday 11 April 2002 14:26, Aleksey Sanin wrote: > As I said before from my point of vew the current proposed padding makes > XML Enc non-interop with RFC1423 and from my expirience it makes > harder to follow XML Enc standard for implementors. Aside from questions of myth, what an RFC means, and who knows Ron Rivest (he's a couple offices down from me but I fear it doesn't rub off on me! <smile/>), I think the simple issue is we already have interop over what has been specified and it's hard to break that without a consensus of what was specified is broken. In this case, the non-interop with RFC1423 is a fact, but we didn't have a requirement to use that and we had reasons for not using it. I'm open to a parenthetical comment in the spec to this point if it's likely to be a surprise to others. And the fact that it isn't common in the libraries you are using is unfortunate but remediable. I've documented the issue in [1] and will mark it closed unless there's an objection that it should stay open to consideration by the Director when I request document advancement. [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/11/last-call-issues.html#CandidateREC -- 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 Friday, 12 April 2002 16:01:25 UTC