Reagle's supplementary  notes. These notes are not normative.

Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Joseph Reagle


Status of documents < 5 minutes

Other  Issues



Are we prepared to go the XML Toolkit route, and say this isn't necessarily the most mature signature technology?

Simon: once you pass the content through DOM/SAX, you loose a lot of the information that minimalization wanted to preserve.

Consens: FSML is using a minimal canonicalization. Environments where a parser is not a given. Not forcing one to work at the DOM level should still be an option.

Simon: what if you put it in a comment, you need a parser or you end up with security problems.

Solo: is there an environment where minimal might be useful?

LaMacchia : whether this is from the creator or signature?

Minimal is required, do we make it optional. Yes: move C14N as required, minimal as optional. Focuss efforts on toolkits, and verifying those.

Bartel: don't use full canonicalization, simple implementations should just consume and generate the output of what would look like c14n XML. (Canonical XML Form).

Fox: we are not discussing what out's there today, but what we can use today, so don't get too lost with what is right out there now.

Boyer volunteers to take over Canonical XML.

If you do an XPath and serialize it, and a succeeding transform expects well formed XML, then a succeeding thing should do it. Canonical XML should work on any nodeset.

Connolly and Martin mentioned making character normalization (Normalized Form C) orthogonal to element/attribute C14N.

Tom Gindin's point: if you combine documents, and there IDs conflict, what do you do? Discussion: please send an example to list. (Reagle: not something I think we can fix.)


[Fox and LaMacchia  presentation]


Joseph Reagle <

Last revised by Reagle $Date: 2000/08/09 19:34:12 $