This document describes the interoperability requirements over a features, operations, and requirements specified by the Exclusive Canonicalizationspecification of the IETF/W3C XML Signature WG. The minimum exit criteria for this implementation period is defined by the IETF RFC2026 Draft Standard semantic:
4.1.2 Draft Standard A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable implementations from different code bases have been developed, and for which sufficient successful operational experience has been obtained... For the purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in which they are used.
Implementations must operate over the previous Canonical XML requirements and the following list of (mostly) MANDATORY operations. There is already signficant implementation experience and we expect to satisfy the exit criteria (2 implementations) within two weeks of reaching Candidate Rec. However, this period may be extended so as to increase our confidence by increasing the number of compliant implementations and/or expanding the test cases.
The following information is the best assesment of the Editors/Chairs for the given dated specification and does not necessarily represent the latest state of any given implementation over this or later specifications. The following key applies: "Y"(implemented), "Y{1,2,*}"(interoperable with others in that Y{1,2,*} set), "N"(not implemented), ""(unkown).
Features (yellow designates interoperable examples exchanged)  Key Word  Apache  Baltimore  IAIK  IBM  Phaos  XMLsec  NEC  Datapower 
Not rendering outofsubset ancestor xml:* attributes.  MUST  Y1 Y2  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 
The first occurence of a namespace node occurs on elements nodes where it is actually utilzied.  MUST  Y1 Y2  Y1
Y2
Y3 Y4 
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 
InclusiveNamespaces
PrefixList specified prefixes are treated according to
Canonical XML. 
MUST  Y1 Y2  Y1
Y2
Y3 Y4 
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 

MUST  Y1 Y2  Y1 Y2 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 
Performance: does it equal or exceed performance of Canonical XML on a similar operation?  Y  Y  Y  not yet  Y  Y  Y  Y 
$Revision: 1.33 $ on $Date: 2003/05/06 17:49:21 $ GMT by $Author: reagle $
=======