RE: [wss] SwA profile exclusive canonicalization issue proposed resolution

[<Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>]

RE adding statement about InclusiveNamespacePrefixList in conjunction
with XML attachment exclusive canonicalization for SwA profile.

Thomas

Use of inclusive vs exclusive here really is about allowing
implementation re-use and consistency with BSP etc.
The attachment is essentially a stand-alone XML document without a
context change.

Should we state that the InclusiveNamespacePrefixList should be empty?
Is that correct and what you have in mind?
If others have a knowledgeable opinion can you please state to the wss
list? Unless I hear otherwise I will add a statement that "The
InclusiveNamespacePrefixList SHOULD be empty." after the sentence at
line 398. 

Also if any additional comments on current draft please send to list.
I'd like to get a revised draft out early next week to allow vote at
next WSS meeting. Two issues were marked pending review at this weeks
wss meeting.
 
Thanks

Regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext DeMartini, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:53 PM
To: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-TP/Boston); dkaufman@forumsys.com;
wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wss] SwA profile exclusive canonicalization issue proposed
resolution

Does this mean we should allow the specification of the
InclusiveNamespacePrefixList as a child of the respective Transform
elements?

&Thomas.

] -----Original Message-----
] From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com]
] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:36 PM ] To: dkaufman@forumsys.com;
wss@lists.oasis-open.org ] Subject: [wss] SwA profile exclusive
canonicalization issue proposed ] resolution ] ] Dana ] ] Thanks for
pointing out the issue of type of Exclusive canonicalization.
]
] I propose we modify SwA profile at line 398 draft 20 pdf-diff version
to ] state:
]
] "using Exclusive XML Canonicalization, without comments, as specified
by ] the URI http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n# [Excl-Canon]."
]
] This is consistent with the form of canonicalization specified
elsewhere ] (e.g. WS-I basic security profile) [1].
]
] Also modify line 443 and 468, adding "without comments" before [.
]
] If anyone has any disagreement or suggestion please send to wss list.
]
] Thanks
]
] Regards, Frederick
]
] Frederick Hirsch
] Nokia
]
]
] [1]
] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.0-2005-01-20.html
]
] -----Original Message-----
] From: ext Dana Kaufman [mailto:dkaufman@forumsys.com] ] Sent: Tuesday,
May 31, 2005 12:19 PM ] To: Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-TP/Boston);
wss@lists.oasis-open.org ] Subject: SwA - Draft 20 Item ] ] Frederick, ]
] SwA Profile - Draft 20 requires c14n of signed XML attachments
according ] to the Exclusive XML C14n specification, but the WSS SwA
draft neglects ] to specify which of the c14n algorithms in the latter
specification ] should be used, i.e. exclusive c14n with comments or
without?
]
] Dana S. Kaufman
] VP of Product Management
] Forum Systems, Inc.
] Tel: (781) 788-4232
] E-Mail: dkaufman@forumsys.com
] Visit http://www.forumsys.com
]
]
]
]
] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
] To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that ]
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in ]
OASIS ] at:
] https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php