There are 6   comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
substantive comments 
Comment LC-2371  
Commenter:  Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> (archived message ) Context:  4.5.3 The RetrievalMethod Element  (Add new section 4.5.10 for KeyInfoReference, update schema)Status:  open 
proposal 
pending 
resolved_yes 
resolved_no 
resolved_partial 
other 
Not assigned Type:  substantive 
editorial 
typo 
question 
general comment 
undefined 
Resolution status:  Response status: 
    Commenter's response (URI):   Comment :During the Requirements Workshop that led to the 1.1 effort, some flaws in
Related issues:  ISSUE-187  
WG  Notes:ISSUE-187 Last Call Issue - Retrieval Method schema and usability
Update completed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0034.html
with review corrections http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0040.html Resolution:  RESOLUTION: WG agrees to KeyInfoReference proposal from Scott, removing Type, allowing continued use of RetrievalMethod for other purposes, and referencing Reference for URI processing
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#item06
also to be clear for 1.1:
 RESOLUTION: Accept proposed Last Call change in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0019.html
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/16-xmlsec-minutes.html#item07 (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption) 
 
Comment LC-2424  
Commenter:  Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> (archived message ) Context:  4.5.4 The X509Data Element Status:  open 
proposal 
pending 
resolved_yes 
resolved_no 
resolved_partial 
other 
assigned to  Scott Cantor Type:  substantive 
editorial 
typo 
question 
general comment 
undefined 
Resolution status:  Response status: 
    Commenter's response (URI):   Comment :Due to the ongoing problems with the X509IssuerSerial element, I would ask
Related issues:  WG  Notes:ACTION-675 to incorporate change in 2.0 as well. Resolution:  RESOLUTION: group accepts scantor's proposal, to change both 1.1 and 2.0 specifications
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/28-xmlsec-minutes.html#item05
Updated XML SIgnature 1.1 draft, schema and RELAX NG Schema. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption) 
 
Comment LC-2368  
Commenter:  Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> (archived message ) Context:  4.5.8 XML Encryption EncryptedKey and Agreement Elements Status:  open 
proposal 
pending 
resolved_yes 
resolved_no 
resolved_partial 
other 
Not assigned Type:  substantive 
editorial 
typo 
question 
general comment 
undefined 
Resolution status:  Response status: 
    Commenter's response (URI):   Comment :ISSUE-188: Agreement referenced in XML Signature 1.1 but definition not clear [Sig11 (XML Signature 1.1)]
Related issues:  ISSUE-188  
WG  Notes:ISSUE-188  Agreement referenced in XML Signature 1.1 but definition not clear Resolution:  Change xenc:Agreement changed to enc:DerivedKey in XML Signature 1.1 as proposed in 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Mar/0001.html
The WG adopted the following resolution: 
RESOLUTION: Accept change to XML Signature 1.1 for ISSUE-188 as distributed by Magnus in message 1 of March 2010.
Minuted at  http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-xmlsec-minutes.html#item07 (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption) 
 
Comment LC-2376  
Commenter:  MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> (archived message ) Context:  6.1 Algorithm Identifiers and Implementation Requirements Status:  open 
proposal 
pending 
resolved_yes 
resolved_no 
resolved_partial 
other 
Not assigned Type:  substantive 
editorial 
typo 
question 
general comment 
undefined 
Resolution status:  Response status: 
    Commenter's response (URI):   Comment :http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Mar/0052.html 
Related issues:  ISSUE-190,  
ISSUE-191  
WG  Notes:Use http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#sha384 Resolution:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Mar/0074.html
RESOLUTION: use http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#sha384 for backward compatibility
Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#item03 (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption) 
 
Comment LC-2390  
Commenter:  Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> (archived message ) Context:  9.1 XSD Schema Status:  open 
proposal 
pending 
resolved_yes 
resolved_no 
resolved_partial 
other 
Not assigned Type:  substantive 
editorial 
typo 
question 
general comment 
undefined 
Resolution status:  Response status: 
    Commenter's response (URI):   Comment :Just reviewing the schema and noted there's a redundancy:
Related issues:  WG  Notes:The WG discussed this on 15 June, http://www.w3.org/2010/06/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#item04
WG members noted that the reason for the different type is to highlight different semantics and processing rules. In particular CryptoBinary retains leading 0's (unlike Base64) and ECPointType is two points in one binary representation, and could possibly have compression. This is the rationale for a new type and this approach is already in use. Resolution:  RESOLUTION: No change needed for LC-2390, Schema Redundancy last call issue (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption) 
 
Add a comment .