Edit comment LC-3075 for Efficient Extensible Interchange Working Group

Quick access to LC-3041 LC-3042 LC-3043 LC-3044 LC-3045 LC-3065 LC-3066 LC-3067 LC-3068 LC-3069 LC-3070 LC-3071 LC-3072 LC-3073 LC-3074 LC-3075 LC-3076 LC-3077 LC-3078

Comment LC-3075

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: John Schneider <john.schneider@agiledelta.com>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a whole1. Introduction Canonical EXI Abstract 1.1 Notational Conventions and Terminology 1.2 Need of Canonical EXI 1.3 Applications 1.4 Limitations 2. Canonical EXI Stream 3. Canonical EXI Header 4. Canonical EXI Body 4.1 EXI Alignment Options and Streams 4.2 EXI Event Selection 4.2.1 Prune productions according to specific conventions 4.2.2 Prune productions for non applicable events with content values 4.2.3 Use the event with the most accurate event 4.3 EXI Stream Order 4.4 EXI Datatypes 4.4.1 Unsigned Integer 4.4.2 Enumeration 4.4.3 Decimal 4.4.4 Float 4.4.5 Date-Time 4.4.6 String and String Table 4.4.7 Restricted Character Sets 4.4.8 Datatype Representation Map A Design Decisions A.1 Relationship to XML Security A.2 No Unicode Normalization B Canonical EXI Examples B.1 EXI Event Selection Example B-1. Example productions with event codes B.2 EXI Stream Order Example B-2. Attribute and Namespace Declaration Sorting Figure C-1. Canonical EXI used in Signature B.3 EXI Floats Example B-3. Example algorithm for converting float values t... Example B-4. Canonicalized EXI Float values C Canonical EXI Applications C.1 Signature Processing Steps C.2 Exchange EXI Options (Best Practices "Work in Progress") C.2.1 Option 1 - XML Signature element C.2.2 Option 2 - Uri scheme fragment identifier C.2.3 Option 3 - EXI options within EXI stream D References
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody Bournez, Carine Brutzman, Don Cokus, Michael Fernández, Javier D. Heuer, Joerg Käbisch, Sebastian Kamiya, Takuki Kuntschke, Richard Matsukura, Ryuichi McGregor, Don Peintner, Daniel Quin, Liam Shah, Grishma ZERGAOUI, Mohamed

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

11. Section 4.4.1: The last sentence of this section specifies that
all canonical EXI processors MUST support arbitrarily large integer
values. This means there will be some canonical EXI documents that
devices without support for arbitrarily large integers cannot process.
Recommend you consider updating this definition so it is possible to
generate a canonical representation for any EXI document that any
device that meets the minimum EXI processing requirements can handle.
In particular, recommend you consider changing this definition such
that canonical EXI processors MUST represent all Unsigned Integer
values using the Unsigned Integer datatype representation when strict
is true. However, when strict is false canonical EXI processors must
represent Unsigned Integer values greater than 2147483647 using the
String datatype representation. This would enable devices with limited
capabilities to at least read, display and retransmit arbitrarily large
values — even if they don’t have the capability to process them.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes:

Resolution: We think that retransmitting arbitrary large values is doable also if the the device is not capable to represent it properly. Note: a limited intermediary device can fall-back to string. The only device that has to use integer encoding is the one that checks the signature and requires a canonicalized document.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)