ACTION Reagle: Remove core and try to label sections as required versus optional better.
Simon: someone who read the document found it to be very intimidating, not sure what they needed to implement.
Reagle: we need a lot of editorial/exposition work to make the document read better, so if you have any suggestions or get comments on that note, please let us know.
There is concern that if we support secret key MACs, it shouldn't be called a Signature but an Authenticator.
Eastlake: put a sentence or two up front making the distinction between Signature and Authenticator and say we use Signature generally to cover both terms.
Reagle: Connolly mentioned removing the HMAC specification. Fox: wants to retain HMAC, as does Bartel. ConCall wishes to retain "Signature" but use the term carefully; no one wants to remove HMAC either.
People should send comments. Not a normative document, but before we populate it with examples, we should make sure we are in agreement.
Presently, normalize according to character model. Simon and Eastlake aren't keen on this.
Simon: They really need feedback from implementors who have experience, but it isn't required for security purposes -- though is likely to be more complex.
Eastlake: I read of a well balanced fragment somewhere. [The magic phrase is "a well-formed external general parsed entity", a phrase which occurs in the XSLT Recommendation <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116>.]
Simon: that was in the Fragment spec, they specified that for any piece you will always send enough information so it can be understood.
Simon: will write that we've identified this issue though it is not one the XML C14N need worry about.
ACTION Simon: will send text on both these issues today. List has one week to discuss before it is prepared to be sent to the XML working group as this group's consensus position.
Simon: an autoresponder would be neat, but presently the implementations out there are just keeping up with the spec.
Eastlake: IPSec had a big 40 vendor test, doubt we will need this level of formality.
Simon: a little early, but important two months from now.
Slight discussion similar to email disussion. Eastlake: At FTF we agreed to go with present exposition and see what last call comments were.
Reagle: it doesn't seem this issue isn't going anywhere on the basis of arguing about principle. Would be useful if someone feels strong enough to write a "plug-and-play" proposal such that we can look at it and say, "yes" that makes sense.
Eatlake: but most everyone will canonicalize and this solves both of these problems.
Reagle: but we haven't been able to require canonicalization so we have to address this problem -- even if some of us would like people to canonicalize by deafult.
Reagle: I will remove this text and add two setences for the benefit of those that don't canonicalize.
ACTION Bartel: will suggest some changes/text.
Eastlake: Next call on February 17th.
Reagle: I will generate a TR/ietf-draft end of week. If we list Feb 21st as Last Call that gives us time enough for another interim draft and then we can ask the WG "are you comfortable with this going to Last Call" (speak now or forever hold your peace).