- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:19:05 -0400
- To: Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: chairs@w3.org, xenc <xml-encryption@w3.org>
Steve, I'm requesting that xenc [1,2] advance to Proposed Recommendation. ([3] still indicates the Director must be present and doesn't mention COO, but I don't think this requires Tim's attention and I've reviewed these issues with him regardless.) XML Encryption Syntax and Processing [1] - this has been solid/stable for a long time. - we have four interop reports [4]. - no open substantive issues [5]. - we have reports of satisfactory performance and that it works in an application context [6]. - Tim has requested that we keep the media type registration in the spec, which we will do. Decryption Transform for XML Signature - This did undergo some changes prior to the second CR, but we haven't had any adverse feedback since it's publication and we have two interop reports. - The only issue was the question of whether this specification (an optional feature for using XML Encryption/Decryption as an XML Signature Transform) required one or two implementations of optional full XPointer support in its references. We decided [7] since full XPointers were permitted in xmldsig (and this is an xmldsig transform), one implementation was sufficient. [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-core/ [2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-decrypt [3] http://www.w3.org/Guide/StartReview.html [4] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2002/02-xenc-interop.html [5] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/11/last-call-issues.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Sep/0004.html [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2002Sep/0002.html
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 16:19:40 UTC