Encryption: Onward and Upward -- Your Response Needed

Today, the two month CR period for the encryption specifications closes 
[1]. We don't have any oustanding issues [2], and the interop matrix has 
four implementations; this satisfies our exit criteria. However, we also 
identified two other issues for feedback. 

The first issue is performance. I tried to specify a performance profile 
without much success given folks said it's too variable given the device, 
language, and application requirements. So we ended with a "satisfactory 
performance" requirement at the implementors' discretion, and I've had 
three positive reports and no negative ones. 

The second issue was a request for positive or negative experiences in an 
actual application scenario: has anyone use xenc in their application and 
encountered un-remediable problems that needs fixing? Particularly when it 
comes to instance validity and the Decryption Transform for XML Signature 

I haven't heard any reports on this one way or the other. And while I like 
to think "no news is good news" some explicitly positive reports would be 
useful too! For example, "Yes, we've used this with XML Signature to 
encrypt and sign a section of a document (e.g., SOAP, XML form, XHTML 
document) without difficulty."

So this is your last chance to speak up!

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xmlenc-core-20020304/
"We expect to meet all requirements of that report within the two month 
Candidate Recommendation period (closing April 25)"
[2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/11/last-call-issues.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2002/02-xenc-interop.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xmlenc-core-20020304/
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xmlenc-decrypt-20020304

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 16:41:28 UTC