- From: <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:15:07 -0700
- To: public-xmlsec@w3.org, tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com
Hi Taki, I have reviewed the work done by the EXI group and it seems to me that developing an EXI-specific canonicalization would be a fairly significant amount of work (not an unreasonable amount of work, but one probably on the order of a few person-months at the minimum (and more for someone not already well-acquainted with the EXI Format specification)). Part of the challenge is that EXI encapsulates a superset of information than what is in plain, textual XML (e.g. strong data types). EXI also supports XML 1.0 *and* 1.1 whereas Canonical XML 2.0 is only defined for XML 1.0. Personally, I do not expect to have the time to actively participate in the development of EXI-specific canonicalization but may be able to review drafts that are produced. Ed -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: EXI Canonicalization interest From: <edsimon@xmlsec.com> Date: Tue, April 24, 2012 10:21 am To: public-xmlsec@w3.org, tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com Hi Taki, I will try and contact you by mid-May to discuss this. Best, Ed >>> Hi Frederick,One of our members took a look at the latest Canonical XML 2.0draft. Although it appears to represent a leap from 1.0, it doesnot seem to address our desire to bypass altogether the textural XML representation in getting to the final hash value for signature.We, therefore, are considering that we may want to work onnative EXI-canonicalization in the next WG term.I would like to know if there has been any discussion or interesthad by XML Security WG based on our write-up [1] so far. I thinkthat if there are enough interest, the two WGs would better beworking on it together.[1] https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/EXI/wiki/EXISignatureThanks,-taki <<<
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:15:46 UTC